Villescas v. Dotson et al

Filing 97

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Videoconference and Use of Court's Electronic Filing System 96 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/16/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALBERTO VILLESCAS,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
M.T. DOTSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02068-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR VIDEOCONFERENCE AND USE OF
COURT’S ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM
[ECF No. 96]

Plaintiff Alberto Villescas is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the

19

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 34; Local Rule 302. This case is

20

currently set for jury trial before the undersigned on April 19, 2017.

21

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for use of videoconference and the Court’s

22

electronic filing system, filed October 26, 2016. Plaintiff indicates that he has a hearing impairment

23

which requires the use of hearing aids in both ears, and he has difficulty hearing by use of a telephone.

24

Plaintiff requests that any and all future hearings be conducted by videoconference instead of

25

telephone. Plaintiff also requests use of the Court’s electronic filing system.

26

Although Plaintiff may have a hearing impairment, the Court finds that use of the telephone

27

conference to be sufficient, at the present time, to accommodate Plaintiff’s needs. On October 19,

28

2016, the Court held a telephonic trial scheduling conference and did not notice any difficulty on the
1

1

part of Plaintiff in hearing and participating in the conference. Should Plaintiff have difficulties in the

2

future, the Court will reconsider alternative avenues when conducting telephonic hearings to ensure

3

that he can hear all the proceedings. The Court’s videoconferencing equipment does not provide a

4

better sound quality than the telephones.
With regard to Plaintiff’s request for use of the Court’s electronic filing system, Plaintiff

5
6

request must be denied. Pursuant to Local Rule 133(b)(2), pro se litigants are exempt from use of the

7

electronic filing system without court permission. The Court does not find the need and/or

8

justification for Plaintiff to use the electronic filing system, and all filings shall be served and filed in

9

paper format to be scanned by the Clerk of Court.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for videoconference and use of the Court’s

10
11

electronic filing system is DENIED.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

15

November 16, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2