Rainsford v. O'Malley et al

Filing 21

ORDER REGARDING PROOFS OF SERVICE RECEIVED BY MAIL. Signed by Judge Lisa J. Cisneros on 3/11/2025. (bns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2025)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EDMUND RAINSFORD,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 24-cv-01862-LJC
ORDER REGARDING PROOFS OF
SERVICE RECEIVED BY MAIL

v.
LEE DUDEK,
Defendant.

12
13

The Court is in receipt of proofs of service that Plaintiff Edmund Rainsford, pro se, mailed

14

directly to the undersigned magistrate judge. The Court has repeatedly addressed Rainsford’s

15

improper mailing of documents to the presiding judge rather than to the Clerk for filing.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

For example, on September 6, 2024, the Court issued an Order Regarding Filing of
Documents that included the following passage:
The Court received a copy of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint via
mail. The Amended Complaint has not been filed, and the Court infers
that Plaintiff intended to file the Amended Complaint by mailing it to
the undersigned. As a one-time courtesy to Plaintiff, and given
Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant, the Court will redirect the
Amended Complaint to the Clerk’s Office for filing.
The Court advises Plaintiff that to file documents via mail, he must
send the documents to the Clerk’s Office at United States District
Court, 450 Golden Gate Ave., 16th Fl., San Francisco, CA 94102. He
cannot continue to mail documents directly to the undersigned or her
Courtroom Deputy for filing. Going forward, any documents sent to
the undersigned or her courtroom deputy run the risk of not being filed
with the Clerk’s Office, and Plaintiff is not guaranteed to receive
express notice of such a mistake.
ECF No. 9 (emphasis added).
And on January 13, 2025, the Court again “excuse[d] Rainsford’s noncompliance” with
filing procedures and considered a document mailed directly to the undersigned magistrate judge,

1

but “ORDERED [Rainsford] to submit any future request for relief—or other documents relevant

2

to this case—to the Clerk for filing, rather than directly to the undersigned judge.” ECF No. 16

3

(emphasis added).

4
5

documents that Rainsford has mailed. Going forward, however, Rainsford must mail documents

6

for filing to the Clerk’s Office, addressed as follows:

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

As a final courtesy on this subject, the Court will once again direct the Clerk to file the

Clerk’s Office
United States District Court
450 Golden Gate Ave, 16th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Alternatively, Rainsford may register for electronic filing and service by following the

11

instructions at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/e-file/. But future documents mailed directly to the

12

undersigned judge may be returned and/or disregarded. Although the Court is cognizant of

13

Rainsford’s pro se status, Rainsford must comply with the Court’s orders and rules if he wishes to

14

proceed with this case.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2025

17
18
LISA J. CISNEROS
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2