Baldhosky v. Hubbard et al

Filing 8

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Motion For Permission For Electronic Case Filing (ECF No. 7 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/3/2012. (Fahrney, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 RAYMOND BALDHOSKY, CASE No. 1:12-cv-01200-MJS (PC) ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PERMISSION FOR ELECTRONIC CASE FILING 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. (ECF No. 7) 14 15 SUSAN HUBBARD, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 / 18 19 Plaintiff Raymond Baldhosky is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 20 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) 21 Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) 22 The Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s Complaint. On September 17, 2012, 23 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing to allow him to e-file 24 documents in this Court’s CM/ECF case management system. (ECF No. 7.) This Motion 25 is now before the Court. 26 Plaintiff does not have a right to e-file documents with the Court. A pro se party is 27 to file and serve paper documents. Local Rule 133(a). However, a pro se party may utilize 28 electronic filing with permission of the Court. Local Rules 133(b)(2), 183(c). A request to -1- 1 utilize electronic filing shall be submitted as a stipulation, Local Rule 143, or if a stipulation 2 can not be had as a written motion setting out an explanation of the reasons therefore. 3 Local Rule 133(b)(3). At this early stage of the proceedings, it is not clear that the relief requested is 4 5 supported by good cause and would further the interests of the parties or the Court. 6 Absent some presently unforseen development in this case, there is nothing further 7 Plaintiff will be required to file before his case is screened. The fact Plaintiff 8 characterizes himself as disabled and living some distance from the Court does not 9 suggest a need for e-filing. Paper filing by mail is acceptable and generally does not 10 require a party travel to the courthouse. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission for 11 12 Electronic Case Filing (ECF No. 7) is DENIED but without prejudice to Plaintiff moving 13 the Court again if reasons beyond those presently known are shown to exist and justify 14 e-filing. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: ci4d6 October 3, 2012 Michael J. Seng /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?