Najafianashrafi v. Garland et al

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to file through the Court's E-Filling Program 15 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/24/2024. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ZABIHOLLAH NAJAFIANASHRAFI,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00336-KES-BAM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
THROUGH THE COURT’S E-FILING
PROGRAM

MERRICK B. GARLAND, et al.,
(Doc. 15)
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Zabihollah Najafianashrafi, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on April 9,

18

2024 against Defendants Merrick B. Garland, Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, and

19

Christopher A. Wray. (Doc. 1.) On September 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended

20

Complaint. (Doc. 12.) On September 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant request for permission

21

to file documents electronically through the e-filing system. (Doc. 15.)

22

Pursuant to the Local Rules, a pro se party shall file and serve paper documents and may

23

not utilize electronic filing unless granted permission by the Court. L.R. 133(a)-(b). A pro se

24

party may request an exception to the paper filing requirement from the Court by filing a

25

stipulation of the parties, or “if a stipulation cannot be had, [a] written motion[] setting out an

26

explanation of reasons for the exception.” L.R. 133(b)(3).

27

Plaintiff states that e-filing through PACER would allow him to manage his case more

28

efficiently and would allow him to receive timely notifications of court filings and orders and
1

1

facilitate more effective case management. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff does not further explain why an

2

exception is warranted. (See Doc. 15.) Upon review of the pleadings in this action and the

3

instant request, the Court finds that this action currently does not warrant an exception to the

4

Local Rule. Documents intended to be filed with the Court must be mailed to the Clerk of the

5

Court. See Local Rule 134(a).

6
7

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for permission to utilize electronic filing is DENIED
without prejudice.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

September 24, 2024

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2