Halloum v. Ryan et al

Filing 81

ORDER that Plaintiff's 76 Motion to Subrogate His Electronic Filing is GRANTED; from the date of entry of this order, notice and service upon plaintiff shall be by first class mail to his last known address provided to the court; the 74 Order and 75 Judgment are both VACATED; Plaintiff shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of entry of this Order to pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a response showing good cause why he cannot pay; if plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Order, the Court may dismiss this action. Plaintiff's 77 Motion to Expedite Trial Date is DENIED without prejudice to renew. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 4/25/2013. (See Order for details.)(LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10
11
12 Ammar Dean Halloum,
13

Plaintiff,

14

vs.

15 Charles Ryan, et al.,
16

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-97-PHX-RCB(JFM)
O R D E R

17
18

Currently pending before the court are two motions

19 simultaneously filed by plaintiff pro se, Ammar Dean Halloum.
20 In the first, plaintiff is seeking “to [s]ubrogate [h]is
21 [e]lectronic [f]iling[,]” Mot. (Doc. 76); and in the second,
22 he is seeking to “expedite the trial date.”
23 1:10-11.

Mot. (Doc. 77) at

For the reasons set forth below, the court grants

24 the first motion, but denies the second without prejudice to
25 renew.
26

Background

In January, 2011, while confined in the Arizona State

27 Prison Complex-Tucson, plaintiff filed this pro se civil
28 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as an

1

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

2

the plaintiff in forma pauperis status and assessed the

3

statutory filing fee of $350.00.

4

2011, the plaintiff informed the court that he had been

5

released from custody.

6

The Court granted

Ord. (Doc. 5). On April 21,

Not. (Doc. 16).

Pursuant to this court’s January 27, 2011, order,

7

plaintiff was required to “pay the unpaid balance of the

8

filing fee within 120 days” of that release date.

9

(Doc. 5) at 8:11.

See Ord.

That order also required plaintiff, within

10

30 days of his release, to “either (1) notify the court that

11

he intends to pay the balance or (2) show good cause, in

12

writing, why he cannot.”

13

court’s order explicitly “[w]arn[ed][,]” among other things,

14

that “[f]ailure to comply” with the foregoing “may result in

15

dismissal of this action.”

16

original); and at 8:13-14.

17

Id. at 8:12-13.

Further, this

Id. at 8:9 (emphasis in

Despite plaintiff’s failure to comply with any of those

18

requirements, this lawsuit progressed.

19

the defendants filed a summary judgment motion.

20

2012, the plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary

21

judgment.

22

2012, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file and

23

serve electronically pursuant to this District’s Electronic

24

Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual

25

(the ECF Manual), ¶ II.B.3.

26

the fully completed “PRO SE PARTICIPANT ELECTRONIC CASE FILES

27

REGISTRATION FORM[.]” Mot. (Doc. 58) at 4-5.

28

United States Magistrate Judge Metcalf granted that motion on

And, in April, 2012,
In late May,

During the pendency of those motions, on June 22,

Plaintiff attached to his motion

-2-

The Honorable

1

June 27, 2012, “remind[ing]” plaintiff of his “obligation to

2

‘register as a user with the Clerk’s Office and as a

3

subscriber to PACER within five . . . days.’”

4

(quoting ECF Manual at ¶ II.B.3).

Ord. (Doc. 59)

5

On July 2, 2012, within five days of the Magistrate

6

Judge’s order, the Clerk of the Court’s records indicate that

7

plaintiff was issued a login and password, and denoted as

8

“Registered” with the court’s CM/ECF system. CM/ECF-azd-User

9

Maintenance Information for Ammar Dean Halloum.

A

10

“Registered User” is “an individual who has been issued a

11

login and password by the court to electronically file

12

documents.”

13

of his login and password, on July 2, 2012, plaintiff Halloum

14

became a “registered user” within the meaning of the ECF

15

Manual.

16

the Clerk’s Office began serving plaintiff electronically.

17

ECF Manual at 4, ¶ I(A). Thus, with the issuance

Consequently, the docket shows that after that date,

On October 12, 2012, this court entered an Order to Show

18

Cause (“OSC”) directing the plaintiff to pay the statutory

19

filing fee or show cause why he has not paid the balance of

20

his filing fee, which was still the full $350.00 (Doc. 73).

21

That OSC contained a separate “Warning[,]” notifying the

22

plaintiff that “[i]f [he] fails to timely comply with th[at]

23

[OSC], the Court may dismiss this action without further

24

notice.”

25

his status as a registered ECF user, plaintiff was

26

electronically served with the OSC.

27

Electronic Filing (“NEF”) attached thereto at 1.

28

Id. at 2:7-9 (citation omitted).

Consistent with

OSC (Doc. 73), Notice of

When the plaintiff did not respond to the OSC, on
-3-

1

November 28, 2012, this court dismissed the action without

2

prejudice in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), and denied

3

the pending summary judgment motions as moot.

4

at 3:22-4:1, ¶¶ (2)(3).

5

that same date (Doc. 75).

6

electronically served with the dismissal order and the

7

judgment.

8

Judgment (Doc. 75), NEF attached thereto at 1.

9

in this case, was there ever a notice of failure of delivery

Ord. (Doc. 74)

Judgment was entered accordingly
Also on that date, plaintiff was

Ord. (Doc. 74), NEF attached thereto at 1; and
At no time

10

as to any of the notices of electronic filing (“NEF”)

11

associated with any of the electronically filed and served

12

court orders.

13

Roughly two months later, on January 24, 2013, plaintiff

14

filed the pending motions.

15

claiming that he has not been able to access the CM/ECF

16

system and that he did not have notice of the OSC and the

17

resultant dismissal order.

18
19

Essentially, plaintiff is

Discussion
I.

20

Electronic Filing
Because they are uncertain as to exactly what relief

21

plaintiff is seeking in his motion “to subrogate his

22

electronic filing[,]” the defendants acknowledge receipt, but

23

otherwise do not respond.

24

21.

25

wants to use electronic filing because he has not been able

26

to “successfully access the record.”

27
28

See Defs.’ Ack. (Doc. 78) at 1:20-

As the court construes plaintiff’s motion, he no longer

Mot. (Doc. 76) at 1:12.

The record as presently constituted strongly supports
plaintiff’s contention.

Although it is not absolutely
-4-

1

certain, evidently plaintiff tried to use the ECF system once,

2

on July 3, 2012 – one day after becoming a registered ECF

3

user.

4

that date someone, presumably plaintiff, was active on his ECF

5

account for 27 seconds.

6

Information for Ammar Dean Halloum.

7

time, plaintiff was unable to access the docket in this case.

8

Further, clearly he did not electronically file any documents

9

at that time.

10

The records of the Clerk of the Court reflect that on

CM/ECF-azd-User Maintenance
Evidently, in that short

In fact, since becoming a registered ECF user, plaintiff

11

has never availed himself of electronic service or filing.

12

always submits a hard copy to the Clerk of the Court’s office

13

for filing and serves the defendants by mail.

14

(Doc. 63).

15

system, is consistent with plaintiff not being able to

16

“successfully access the record.”

17

1:12.

18

after July 2, 2012, the date plaintiff supposedly became a

19

registered ECF user, they have always served plaintiff by

20

mail, stating that he “is not a registered participant of the

21

CM/ECF system.”

22

He

See, e.g., Mot.

Proceeding in that way, rather than using the ECF

See Mot. (Doc. 76) at

Perhaps the defendants were aware of that, because even

See. e.g., Mot. (Doc. 65) at 3:6-7.

In light of the foregoing, the court sees no reason to

23

compel plaintiff to use the ECF system for filing and service.

24

The court therefore GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to “[s]ubrogate

25

his [e]lectronic [f]iling[.]” See Mot. (Doc. 76) at 1:5-6

26

(emphasis omitted).

27

deemed to be a registered user within the meaning of the ECF

28

Manual.

This means that plaintiff is no longer

Therefore, in this case, he cannot file and receive
-5-

1

notice electronically.

2

II.

3

Trial Date
On January 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to expedite

4 [the] trial date[,]” claiming that he “does not know the
5 process when the Court will set the Trail [sic], and has been
6 waiting for months[.]” Mot. (Doc. 77) at 1:10-13.

In

7 response, the defendants point out that this action “was
8 dismissed and Judgment was entered on November 29, 2012.”1
9 Resp. (Doc. 79) at 1:19-20 (citations omitted).

Defendants

10 accurately explain that when the plaintiff failed to respond
11 to the OSC, the court dismissed this action.
12

Significantly, however, as the court construes plaintiff’s

13 reply, he did not learn of either the OSC or the resultant
14 dismissal order until the filing of defendants’ response on
15 approximately February 6, 2013

– slightly more than two

16 months after the dismissal of this action.

Now, plaintiff

17 “wants to bring to the [court’s] attention” the possibility of
18 a notification “error[.]” Reply (Doc. 80) at 1:25.

Plaintiff,

19 therefore, “requests . . . reinstate[ment] of his case[,]” to
20 “give him enough time to respond to the fee inquiry, or to pay
21 it.”
22

Id. at 2:2-3.
When plaintiff Halloum completed the electronic

23 registration form, among other things, he “consent[ed] to
24 receive notice electronically and waiver of the right to
25 receive notice by first class mail[.]”
26 5.

See Mot. (Doc. 58) at

Similarly, the plaintiff “consent[ed] to electronic

27
1

28

Actually, the dismissal order and judgment both were entered on
November 28, 2012. Ord. (Doc. 74) and Judgment (Doc. 75).

-6-

1 service and waiver of the right to service by personal service
2 or first class mail . . . except with regard to service of a
3 summons and complaint.”

Id.

That form further advised the

4 plaintiff that “waiver of service and notice by first class
5 mail applies to notice of the entry of an order or judgment.”
6 Id.
7

Ordinarily, the foregoing, coupled with plaintiff

8 Halloum’s “acknowledg[ment]” that [he] . . . read and
9 underst[ood] the information” in the signed registration form,
10 would readily convince this court that when he became a
11 registered ECF user, the plaintiff waived his right to notice
12 and service by any means other than electronically.
13 (Doc. 58) at 5. This case is not typical, however.

See Mot.
That is

14 because at the issuance of his password and login information,
15 the ECF system allowed plaintiff to log-in and view documents
16 filed in this case, but it did not allow him to electronically
17 file any documents.

Therefore, it is possible that on July 3,

18 2012, the first and only time plaintiff’s ECF account shows
19 any activity, he was trying to e-file the motion for an
20 extension of time.

It also is entirely possible that because

21 plaintiff could not access his ECF account at that time, he
22 resorted to providing the court with a hard copy, which was
23 filed on July 5, 2012.

See Mot. (Doc. 63) at 1.

24 Plaintiff’s inability to e-file is also in keeping with his
25 practice of always submitting hard copies of any documents for
26 filing to the court and of serving defendants via mail.

Under

27 these unique circumstances, the court cannot find that
28 plaintiff Halloum necessarily had notice of either the OSC or
-7-

1 the dismissal order and entry of judgment thereon.

Therefore,

2 the court hereby VACATES the judgment entered on November 28,
3 2012 (Doc. 75), as well as the order entered on that same date
4 (Doc. 74).

At the same time, though, because the foregoing

5 means that the summary judgment motions will, once gain, be
6 pending, the court hereby DENIES without prejudice to renew
7 plaintiff’s motion to expedite the trial (Doc. 77).
8

For the reasons set forth above, the court hereby ORDERS

9 that:
10

(1) “Plaintiff’s Motion to Subrogate His Electronic
Filing” Mot. (Doc. 76) is GRANTED;

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

(2) from the date of entry of this order, notice and
service upon plaintiff shall be by first class mail
to his last known address provided to the court, P.O.
Box 26246, Tempe, Arizona 85285;
(3) the order entered on November 28, 2012 (Doc. 74) and
the judgment entered on November 28, 2012 (Doc. 75)
are both VACATED;
(4) plaintiff shall have fifteen (15) days from the date
of entry of this order in which to either pay the
$350.00 filing fee or file a response showing good
cause why he cannot pay the filing fee;

18
19
20
21
22
23

(5) if plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order,
as directed in paragraph (3) above, the court may
dismiss this action without further notice, see
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.
1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for
failure to comply with any order of the Court);
(6) defendants shall file a reply, if any, within
fifteen (15) days after service of the responsive
memorandum; and

24 . . .
25
26
27
28
-8-

1

(7) “Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Trial Date” (Doc. 77)
is DENIED without prejudice to renew.

2
3

DATED this 25th day of April, 2013.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10 Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se at P.O. Box

26246, Tempe, AZ 85285
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-