In re: Michael Fries

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Request for Relief From the Electronic Filing System 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/30/17. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 IN RE: 9 10 MICHAEL FRIES, 11 12 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:17-mc-00064-SAB ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM THE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM [ECF No. 1] 14 On August 24, 2017, the Court received a motion from the Plaintiff requesting access to the 15 electronic case filing system Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”) in Delano, California. Plaintiff 16 contends that his efforts to gain access to use of the electronic filing system to file his complaint have 17 been denied. Plaintiff requests to be exempt from filing his complaint through use of the electronic 18 filing system. 19 On September 26, 2017, the Court served a copy of Plaintiff’s request on Supervising Deputy 20 Attorney General Monica Anderson and directed a response be filed within fourteen days. The Court 21 also directed Plaintiff to file a detailed brief as to how he was denied access to the e-filing system 22 within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 2.) 23 Plaintiff filed his brief on October 26, 2017. Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica 24 Anderson, by way of special appearance, filed a response to the Court’s order on October 4, 2017. The 25 matter is now submitted to the Court for review and ruling.1 26 27 1 28 Except for specifically identified motions not at issue here, a magistrate judge is permitted to hear and determine any pretrial matter that is not dispositive of a claim or defense pending before the court. 28 U.S.C. § 1 1 I. 2 DISCUSSION 3 In his brief, Plaintiff contends that on August 17, 2017, he attempted to file a civil rights 4 complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis with the Court, along with a motion for relief from 5 the e-filing procedures, via regular mail. On September 5, 2017, the complaint and motions were 6 returned to Plaintiff with instructions to e-file the complaint pursuant to the court’s standing order. On 7 September 7, 2017, Plaintiff re-submitted his complaint and motions via regular mail, with a letter 8 stating that he lacked access to the law library or e-filing procedures. These materials were again 9 returned to Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that he is regularly denied law library access at KVSP. 10 The Office of the Attorney General submitted the declaration of the Library Technical 11 Assistant at KVSP, R. Tinsley, who declares that Mr. Fries visited the law library on C-Facility on 12 February 8, 2017. (Decl. R. Tinsley, ECF No. 3-1, at ¶ 4.) On that date, Mr. Fries was provided a § 13 1983 complaint form and three proofs of service, but did not fill out the forms at the law library or ask 14 for the forms to be e-filed. (Decl. R. Tinsley, ECF No. 3-1, at ¶ 4.) Mr. Fries again visited the law 15 library on April 10, 2017, May 5, 2017, and May 25, 2017, but did not request a § 1983 e-filing 16 packet. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Further, the law library for C-Facility received eight requests for law library access 17 from Mr. Fries between April 10, 2017 and September 1, 2017, and ducets were ordered, but Mr. Fries 18 did not show at the library for the scheduled visits. (Id. at ¶ 6.) 19 Plaintiff contends that he had medical appointments that prevented him from attending the law 20 library when ducets were prepared for him for June 5, 2017 and for September 6, 2017. According to 21 Plaintiff, he was transported to San Joaquin Community Hospital in Bakersfield for surgery from June 22 5, 2017 to June 9, 2017, and on September 6, 2017, he was taken to an ophthalmologist in Bakersfield. 23 Based on the declaration submitted by Library Technical Assistant R. Tinsley and the 24 information submitted by Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has had adequate access to the 25 electronic filing system at the time he attempted to file his civil rights complaint in August and 26 September 2017, but did not avail himself of the available services. Although he was occasionally 27 28 636(b)(1); Local Rule 302. As the issue addressed here is not dispositive of Plaintiff's action, but merely addresses the manner in which his case must be filed, the Court shall proceed by order. 2 1 prevented from attending the law library due to his medical appointments, prison officials did not 2 generally prevent him from utilizing the e-filing system. 3 Accordingly, there is no basis for Court intervention and Mr. Fries must comply with the 4 normal procedures to file his complaint through the electronic filing system pursuant to the Court’s 5 Standing Order. No case on the merits will be opened at this time. 6 II. 7 ORDER Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to be exempt from use of the electronic filing 8 9 system to file his complaint is DENIED. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: 13 October 30, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?