Bancroft v. Courtney

Filing 9

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 5 Motion to File Electronically. In the present motion, Defendant has not provided any information about her computer or its software.1 Without such information, the Court is unable to assess whether her equipment and software meet the required technical specifications. Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice defendants motion. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 6/20/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dxj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HUGH BANCROFT,

Case No.: 17-CV-864 JLS (JMA)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE
ELECTRONICALLY

v.
KELLY COURTNEY,

15

Defendants.

(ECF No. 5)

16
17
18
19

Presently before the Court is Defendant Kelly Courtney’s Motion by Pro Se

20

Defendant to Request Permission to File Papers Electronically. (“CM/ECF Mot.,” ECF No.

21

5.) After considering Defendant’s arguments and the law, the Court DENIES WITHOUT

22

PREJUDICE Defendant’s CM/ECF Motion.

23

Generally, “[e]xcept as prescribed by local rule, order, or other procedure, the Court

24

has designated all cases to be assigned to the Electronic Filing System.” Civ. L.R. 5.4(a).

25

With respect to pro se litigants, however, “[u]nless otherwise authorized by the court, all

26

documents submitted for filing to the Clerk’s Office . . . must be in legible, paper form.”

27

Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District of California,

28

Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual § 2(b) (2017). A
1
17-CV-864 JLS (JMA)

1

pro se party seeking leave to electronically file documents must file a motion and

2

demonstrate the means to do so properly by stating their equipment and software

3

capabilities in addition to agreeing to follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF

4

Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual. Id. The manual refers to the court’s

5

official web site for CM/ECF technical specifications, id. at § 1(i), which include a

6

“computer running Windows or Macintosh”; “[s]oftware to convert documents from a

7

word processor format to [PDF],” such as Adobe Acrobat PDF Writer (“Adobe Acrobat

8

7.0 and higher meet the CM/ECF filing requirements”); “PDF compatible word processor

9

like WordPerfect or Word”; “Internet access supporting a transfer rate of 56kb or higher”;

10

a compatible browser, such as Firefox 15.x, Internet Explorer 9.x, or Safari 5.1/6.x; and a

11

“[s]canner to image non-computerized documents 400 pixels per inch (ppi).” United States

12

District

13

https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/CMECF/SitePages/Home.aspx (last visited June 6, 2017).

14

In the present motion, Defendant has not provided any information about her

15

computer or its software.1 Without such information, the Court is unable to assess whether

16

her equipment and software meet the required technical specifications. Accordingly, the

17

Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s CM/ECF Motion (ECF No. 5).

18

See, e.g., Hucul v. Mathew-Burwell, No. 16-CV-1244 JLS (DHB), 2016 WL 3917366, at

19

*1 (S.D. Cal. July 20, 2016) (denying without prejudice plaintiff’s CM/ECF motion where

20

plaintiff demonstrated that his equipment and software met most of the technical

21

specifications, but where it was unclear whether his internet browser was compatible and

22

whether his computer had a “PDF compatible word processor like WordPerfect or Word”);

23

Procopio v. Conrad Prebys Trust, No. 14CV1651 AJB KSC, 2015 WL 4662407, at *8

24

(S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015) (denying motion for electronic filing access where plaintiff “does

25

not provide sufficient information [as required in the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and

Court,

Southern

District

of

California,

CM/ECF:

General

Info,

26
27
28

Rather, Defendant simply notes that “[g]ood cause exists to allow Defendant to file papers with the Court
electronically [because] Defendant lives in Florida and cannot file papers in person at the Court.”
(CM/ECF Mot. 1.)
1

2
17-CV-864 JLS (JMA)

1

Procedures Manual] for the Court to grant his request”); Rojas-Vega v. U.S. Citizenship

2

Immigration Serv., No. 13-CV-172-LAB, 2013 WL 2417937, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 31,

3

2013) (“It is incumbent on [movant] to show he is able to file documents electronically,

4

and reliably receive electronic notices, and his motion fails to do that.”).

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 20, 2017

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17-CV-864 JLS (JMA)