Ko v. Fleming

Filing 13

ORDER (Re Docket Nos. 7-12). Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/12/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LILY KO,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-05280-EMC
ORDER

v.

Docket Nos. 7-12
REBECCA FLEMING,
Defendant.

12
13

Upon initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court determined that Plaintiff's

14

initial pleading failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and granted Plaintiff leave

15

to file an amended complaint. See Docket No. 5. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that failure to file

16

an amended complaint by the deadline would result in the dismissal of this action. See id. at 8.

17

Plaintiff has requested an extension of the deadline to file her amended complaint. Docket

18

No. 9. Upon due consideration, the Court GRANTS the request and sets the following new

19

deadline: Plaintiff must file her amended complaint no later than April 27, 2018.

20

Plaintiff has filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy

21

Act to obtain copies of the case file for this action as well as fourteen other actions. Docket Nos.

22

7, 11, 12. Her requests are DENIED. FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 522, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.

23

§ 522a, generally apply to agencies in the Executive Branch of the United States of America, but

24

do not apply to the federal courts. See Warth v. Department of Justice, 595 F.2d 521, 522 (9th Cir.

25

1979) (“definition of the term „agency‟ expressly exempts „the courts of the United States‟ from

26

the [FOIA‟s] operation. 5 U.S.C. § 551(1)(B). Thus, the provisions of the FOIA impose no

27

obligation on the courts to produce any records in their possession.‟”) The Privacy Act uses the

28

same definition of agency as FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(1); see also id. at §§ 551(1)(B),

1

552(f). A federal court therefore is not subject to the Privacy Act. See Ramirez v. Department of

2

Justice, 594 F. Supp. 2d 58, 62 (D. D.C. 2009), aff’d 2010 WL 4340408 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

3

Plaintiff is not entitled to any documents from the Court under either FOIA or the Privacy Act.

4

As a courtesy, the clerk will send her a copy of the docket sheet for this action, as well as

5

the initial pleading, and the Court‟s orders in this action. A courtesy copy of the entire file will

6

not be provided because there are many pages in the case file, and most of those pages are low-

7

value items like copies of envelopes and requests for photocopies from the plaintiff. Also,

8

Plaintiff has requested documents from numerous other cases she has filed, increasing the burden

9

of providing copies to her. If Plaintiff wants specific documents from the case file, she should use
the Court‟s photocopy order form to order those documents. Plaintiff is cautioned that she must

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

pay for copies of any documents she orders.

12

Plaintiff has requested a certified copy of the oaths of office for the undersigned and for

13

Judge Chhabria and Magistrate Judge Kim. Docket No. 8. The request is DENIED because the

14

Court does not have or provide a certified copy of the oath of office for individual judges or

15

magistrate judges. If Plaintiff is curious about the particular language in the oath of office that is

16

administered to federal judges, that may be found at 28 U.S.C. § 453.

17

Plaintiff has moved to schedule an in-chambers meeting with the undersigned. Docket No.

18

10. The motion is DENIED because there is no need for a hearing in this case at this time and the

19

Court does not meet ex parte with litigants.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: April 12, 2018

24
25
26

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

27
28
2