Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Andrew Rick Lopez v. Arnold Schwarzenegger

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 13, 2012

ANDREW RICK LOPEZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner who has been proceeding pro se, but is now represented by retained counsel as of April 9, 2012, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By Order, filed on February 29, 2012, the January 10, 2012, Findings and Recommendations of the undersigned were adopted in full, and this matter proceeds now as to the fourteen defendants that remain on plaintiff's claims one, four and five only. See docket # 138.

Pending before the court are a number of motions that plaintiff filed while proceeding pro se: 1) plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, sixth motion for appointment of counsel, motion for entry of default and motion for extension of time, all filed in one document, on January 3, 2012; to which defendants filed an opposition on January 20, 2012, after which plaintiff filed a reply on February 2, 2012; 2) plaintiff's motion for court-appointed experts, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 706, filed on January 12, 2012, to which defendants filed their opposition on January 30, 2012; 3) plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to request discovery and to file pretrial motions, filed on February 27, 2012, to which defendants filed an opposition on March 12, 2012, after which plaintiff filed a reply on March 28, 2012; 4) plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, filed on March 15, 2012, which defendants opposed on April 2, 2012; 5) [proposed] second amended complaint, filed on March 15, 2012.*fn1 In light of plaintiff's very recent representation by counsel, the court will vacate all of these motions brought by plaintiff pro se, but will do so without prejudice. Counsel should review the pro se motions and re-notice them only if they should be re-noticed in good faith.

Because plaintiff now has counsel, Local Rule 230(l) no longer applies to this action. Plaintiff's counsel has filed a notice regarding the parties' intent to comply with Local Rule 251 with respect to plaintiff's motion to compel, filed on January 3, 2012 (and herein vacated), expressing his intent to meet and confer with defendants with regard to the disputed discovery responses and defendants' opposition to the motion. See docket # 148. In order to be in compliance with L.R. 251, however, counsel for plaintiff must notice the motion for hearing. Current deadlines per the court's scheduling order, filed on January 10, 2012 (docket # 124), reset the discovery cut-off date as March 13, 2012, and the dispositive motion filing deadline as July 17, 2012. Because the court is now vacating, without prejudice, all pending motions that plaintiff filed pro se, the undersigned will extend the deadline for plaintiff's counsel to notice a motion to compel discovery for hearing until May 31, 2012.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motions filed by plaintiff while proceeding pro se, on January 3, 2012 (docket # 122), on January 12, 2012 (docket # 125), on February 27, 2012 (docket # 137), on March 15, 2012 (docket # 141), as well as the [proposed] second amended complaint, filed on March 15, 2012 (docket # 142), are hereby VACATED, without prejudice, from the court's calendar;

2. In light of plaintiff having newly retained counsel, the Local Rule 230(l) no longer applies to this action; instead, the remaining provisions of L.R. 230 are applicable; and

3. Plaintiff's counsel is granted an extension of time until May 31, 2012, to notice a motion to compel discovery for hearing on the court's calendar in accordance with L.R. 251(a); at this time the extended dispositive motion deadline of July 17, 2012 remains in effect. Following the meet-and-confer re: discovery disagreements pursuant to L.R. 251(b), should plaintiff remain dissatisfied, a Joint Statement re: Discovery Disagreement must be filed in accordance with L.R. 251(c), unless the exception at L.R. 251(e)(1) should apply.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.