Lopez v. Clallam County

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA MIGUEL ANGEL MEDEL LOPEZ, Case No. 3:22-cv-05525-TMC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION v. CLALLAM COUNTY, et al., Defendant. The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David W.Christel, Plaintiff Miguel Angel Medel Lopez’s response to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER: (1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. a. Mr. Lopez did not file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment or objections to the Report and Recommendation within the original time allowed. b. Instead, on April 24, 2024, Mr. Lopez requested additional time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 41. The Court granted this request and allowed Mr. Lopez until May 31, 2024 to file objections. Dkt. 43. c. On May 28, 2024, Mr. Lopez filed a “Motion to Compel” combined with his

response to the Report and Recommendation. Dkt. 44. Mr. Lopez asks the Court to “compel Defendants to send me a copy of medical records that [defense counsel] subpoena[ed] from Washington State Department of Corrections.” Id. at 1. But the discovery deadline in this case was December 8, 2023, and Mr. Lopez did not make any discovery requests or move to compel before that deadline, despite the Court informing him he could do so if he was not able to obtain discovery. See Dkt. 40 at 4; Dkt. 28 at 2. Mr. Lopez also testified in his deposition that he had received copies of his medical records from the Defendants. Dkt. 32-3 at 9. Mr. Lopez’s request to compel

production of his medical records is denied. d. The Court has conducted de novo review of the Report and Recommendation based on Mr. Lopez’s other objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Court will briefly address each objection in turn. e. Mr. Lopez contends that this proceeding has been unfair because the Court denied his two motions to appoint counsel. Dkt. 44 at 2–3. But as Judge Christel explained in denying those motions, there is no right to counsel in a civil case, and Mr. Lopez did not present the extraordinary circumstances that allow for the appointment of counsel. See Dkt. 28.

f. Mr. Lopez says that while he was at the Clallam County jail, an Officer Bluehouse intimidated him during court appearances by threatening to shoot him. Dkt. 44 at 3. There is not an Officer Bluehouse named as a Defendant in this case, and this objection is not a basis for rejecting the Report and Recommendation.

(2) Mr. Lopez’s motion to compel (Dkt. 44) is denied. (3) Mr. Lopez has also filed a motion requesting reimbursement of the filing fees that have been deducted from his prison account. Dkt. 42. But as Judge Christel explained when granting Mr. Lopez’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, even though Mr. Lopez is indigent, the law requires partial payments toward the court filing fee to be collected from his prison account until the entire filing fee has been paid. See Dkt. 3; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Mr. Lopez’s motion to reimburse the filing fee is denied. (4) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 30) is granted, and Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice.

(5) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for Defendants, and to the Hon. David W. Christel. Dated this 5th day of June, 2024. A Tiffany M. Cartwright United States District Judge