Boston v. Harris

Filing 7

ORDER following July 12, 2011 Case Management Conference. A further case management conference is set for 9/13/2011 at 1:30 p.m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 7/14/2011. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2011)

1

** E-filed July 20, 2011 **

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

BRUCE BOSTON,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.

No. C11-01873 HRL
ORDER FOLLOWING JULY 12, 2011
CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

KAMALA HARRIS, in her official capacity
as Attorney General of California,

15
16
17
18
19

Defendant.
____________________________________/
The order that follows is based on the discussion at the July 12, 2011 Case Management
Conference.
At the conference, which only pro se plaintiff Bruce Boston attended, the Court explained to

20

Boston that it did not appear he had properly served defendant Kamala Harris. See Docket No. 4

21

(“Proof of Service”). While under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), Boston may serve Harris

22

pursuant to California law, his attempt to serve to her pursuant to California Code of Civil

23

Procedure § 415.30 appears to have failed because she did not return an acknowledgement of

24

service. See Thierfeldt v. Marin Hosp. Dist., 35 Cal.App.3d 186, 199 (1st Dist. 1973) (“Code of

25

Civil Procedure section 415.30, effective July 1, 1970, which authorizes service of summons by

26

mail, expressly predicates the efficacy of such service upon the execution and return of an

27

acknowledgment of service. If the party addressed fails to do so, there is no effective service, he

28

merely becomes liable for the reasonable expenses of service in a more conventional manner.”).

1

Upon hearing this explanation, Boston suggested that service may be effectuated pursuant to

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1. Rule 5.1 requires that a party challenging the constitutionality

3

of a federal or state law file a notice of the constitutional challenge upon the United States Attorney

4

General or state attorney general, and it also requires the court to certify that such a challenge has

5

been made. See FED. R. CIV. P. § 5.1(a), (b). Nothing in the text or commentary to Rule 5.1,

6

however, indicates that it is an alternative to service of process under Rule 4. In other words, Boston

7

must still serve Harris pursuant to Rule 4.

8

Boston also requested an order granting him access to this District’s Electronic Case Filing

For the Northern District of California

(“ECF”) system. Pro se parties may be allowed access to ECF, but only with court approval. To

10

United States District Court

9

access ECF, a party must meet certain technical requirements and must also agree to abide by the

11

rules and orders of the court. See ECF CALIFORNIA NORTHERN,

12

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/newreg/reg-pro-se-reg.htm (last visited July 13, 2011) (stating

13

that the technical requirements include: (1) access to a personal computer; (2) access to a scanner;

14

(3) internet access; (4) a valid email account; (5) word processing software; and (6) a PDF reader

15

and writer). Accordingly, for his request to be considered further, Boston shall file a declaration

16

describing his ability to meet the technical requirements. Once his declaration is filed, the Court will

17

issue its ruling on the matter.

18

Boston also requested access to this Court’s law library. According to this District’s civil

19

local rules, the library is “primarily for the use of Judges and personnel of the Court . . . [and] [i]n

20

addition, attorneys admitted to practice in this Court may use the library where circumstances

21

require for actions or proceedings pending in the Court.” CIV. L. R. 77-7. Boston is not an attorney,

22

and he has not expressed any particular reason why he needs access to this particular library. In fact,

23

other law libraries are likely better alternatives for him. For instance, the Santa Clara County Law

24

Library, which is located at 360 North 1st Street, San Jose, California, 95113-1004 (which is only a

25

few blocks away from this Court’s library), is open to the public for longer hours and on more days

26

than this Court’s library is, and it has onsite computer access. See SANTA CLARA COUNTY LAW

27

LIBRARY, http://sccll.org/ (last visited July 14, 2011). Accordingly, the Court DENIES his request

28

for access to this Court’s library.

2

1
2

A further case management conference is set for Tuesday, September 13, 2011. The parties
shall file a joint case management statement no later than September 6, 2011.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 14, 2011
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

3

1

C11-01873 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2
3

Notice will provide by other means to:

4

Bruce Boston
19053 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Suite 220
Cupertino, CA 95014

5
6
7

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

4