Linder v. City of Emeryville et al

Filing 50

ORDER by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte denying 48 Motion for Reconsideration. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JONATHAN LINDER,

9

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C -13-01934(EDL)
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR REARGUMENT

v.

11

THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE, ET AL.,

12

Defendant.

/

13
14

Plaintiff has filed a "Motion for Reargument" (Docket No. 48) related to the Court’s October

15

11, 2013 order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 28). The motion, which the

16

Court will interpret as a motion for reconsideration, is premised on Plaintiff’s inability to properly

17

oppose the motion to dismiss because of problems with the Court’s electronic filings systems, ECF

18

and Pacer. Plaintiff's motion fails to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), which requires a party to

19

move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration before filing the actual reconsideration motion.

20

Plaintiff has not sought leave to file a reconsideration motion.

21

The Court also notes that as a pro se litigant, Plaintiff had to seek leave of court in order to

22

use ECF. Plaintiff did so twice. The Court denied the first motion for permission for electronic

23

filing without prejudice on July 18, 2013 (Docket No. 16) and granted the second motion on August

24

1, 2013 (Docket No. 20). In his motion for permission to file electronically, Plaintiff affirmed that

25

he had access to a computer, daily access to an e-mail account in order to check for court filings, and

26

the ability to create and read electronic files. Docket No. 19. Plaintiff has access to the ECF help

27

desk. Therefore, his problems with ECF are not an excuse for his failure to respond to motions or

28

comply with court deadlines. The Court will not grant a motion for reconsideration on the basis of
problems with electronic filing, and cautions Plaintiff not to seek leave to file a reconsideration

1
2

motion without strictly observing the requirements of Local Rule 7-9.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reargument is HEREBY denied without prejudice.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: March 18, 2014
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Chief Magistrate Judge

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2