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)

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-