Zane Hubbard v. Gutierrez et al

Filing 12

ORDER Denying with Prejudice 11 Motion Construed as Request for Relief from Standing Order in Re: Procedural Rules for Electronic Submission of Prisoner Litigation Filed by Plaintiff's Incarcerated at Corcoran and Pleasant Valley State Prisons, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 02/03/15. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ZANE HUBBARD ,

11

16

ORDER DENYING WITH PREJUDICE
MOTION CONSTRUED AS REQUEST
FOR RELIEF FROM STANDING ORDER
IN RE: PROCEDURAL RULES FOR
ELECTRONIC
SUBMISSION
OF
PRISONER LITIGATION FILED BY
PLAINTIFFS
INCARCERATED
AT
CORCORAN AND PLEASANT VALLEY
STATE PRISONS

17

(ECF No. 11)

12
13
14

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01560-LJO-MJS (PC)

v.
R. GUTIERREZ, et al.,
Defendants.

15

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was dismissed on December 18, 2014. (ECF
No. 9.) On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a sixty-four page motion entitled “Emergency
Request for Relief, and Assistance in Filing Two Civil Rights Claims.” (ECF No. 11.)
The current motion presents no basis for relief in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(6); Local Rule 230(j). Instead, it appears that Plaintiff is seeking to avoid
compliance with the new rules for e-filing by attempting to file initial documents for a new
action in this closed case.
Plaintiff is incarcerated at California State Prison-Corcoran and he is subject to

28
1

1

the Standing Order In Re: Procedural Rules for Electronic Submission of Prison

2

Litigation Filed by Plaintiffs Incarcerated at Corcoran and Pleasant Valley State Prisons,

3

filed on October 1, 2014. Pursuant to the Standing Order, which applies to initial filings,

4

(1) new complaints are subject to e-filing and they may not exceed twenty-five pages in

5

length, and (2) motions for emergency relief are subject to e-filing and they may not

6

exceed fifteen pages in length, as Plaintiff correctly was informed by prison staff. (E.g.

7

ECF No. 11 at 5.) To the extent the motion is construed as seeking relief from the

8

Standing Order, it is denied. Furthermore, to the extent Plaintiff is requesting that the

9

Court detach the complaint included with his emergency motion and open a new case,

10

his request is denied. Plaintiff is required to comply with the e-filing procedures set forth

11

in the Standing Order and there exists no legitimate basis for exempting him from

12

compliance.

13

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice. Any further

14

filings the Court determines to be frivolous will be summary denied or stricken,

15

whichever is deemed appropriate by the Court. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

16

325 (1989) (frivolous filings lack arguable basis either in law or in fact).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

February 3, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2