Sheikh v. Medical Board of California et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 4/28/2010 DENYING plaintiff's 27 Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Hollows' 22 Order restricting e-filing access for Farzana Sheikh. (Marciel, M) Modified on 4/28/2010 (Marciel, M).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo---FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D. Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants. ----oo0oo---This matter is before the court on pro per plaintiff Farzana Sheikh, M.D.'s motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's March 18, 2010 order, (1) striking plaintiff's original complaint which was filed by her husband as her "attorney," even though he is not licensed to practice law and (2) granting plaintiff conditional permission to use the court's electronic filing system.1
1

NO. CIV. S-10-213 FCD GGH PS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

(Docket #22.)

Prior to entry of the magistrate

E.D. Cal. L.R. 133(b)(2) (provides that "[a]ny person appearing pro se may not utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge"). The magistrate judge specifically warned plaintiff that the court would monitor plaintiff's filings to "assess their reasonableness" and should the "court discern any unreasonably 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

judge's order, plaintiff filed an amended pleading in pro per, seeking review of the Medical Board of California's denial of her application for a physician's license. 17, 2010.) (Docket #14, filed Feb.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended

complaint; the magistrate judge stayed the hearing on that matter pending this court's resolution of the instant motion for reconsideration.2 Because the magistrate judge's instant order raises nondispositive pre-trial issues, review is governed by the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). As such, the magistrate judge's order cannot be

set aside or modified unless the findings of fact are clearly erroneous or the conclusions are contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(a); Grimes v. San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 239-40 (9th Cir. 1991). Having carefully reviewed the magistrate judge's order

and plaintiff's motion for reconsideration thereof, the court finds the magistrate's judge order striking the original complaint and granting plaintiff conditional access to electronic filing supported by the record and by proper analysis. As a

matter of law, plaintiff's husband cannot represent her in this action because he is not a licenced attorney. 180(b). E.D. Cal. L.R.

Plaintiff has properly corrected the defect in the

original pleading by filing an amended complaint in pro per, and the grant of conditional permission to use the court's e-filing expansive filings, either in number or volume, [its] order [would] be vacated." Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 2
2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

system is warranted under the circumstances. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 28, 2010

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3