Hucul v. The County of San Diego et al

Filing 4

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion to File Electronically [Doc. No. 3 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 8/01/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jjg)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 17cv1531-CAB-MDD MICHAEL HUCUL, Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY [Doc. No. 3] The County of San Diego, the San Diego County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) and it's director, Alisha Griffin as an individual and in her official capacity, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Hucul’s Motion for Leave to File Electronically, Local Civil Rule 5.4, General Order 550, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 5 and 83. [Doc. No. 3.] Having considered Plaintiff’s arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to file electronically. Generally, “[e]xcept as prescribed by local rule, order, or other procedure, the Court has designated all cases to be assigned to the Electronic Filing System.” Civ. L.R. 5.4(a). With respect to pro se litigants, however, “[u]nless otherwise authorized by the court, all documents submitted for filing to the Clerk’s Office . . . must be in legible, paper form.” Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District of 1 17cv1531-CAB-MDD 1 California, Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual § 2(b) 2 (2017). 3 A pro se party seeking leave to electronically file documents must file a motion 4 and demonstrate the means to do so properly by stating their equipment and software 5 capabilities in addition to agreeing to follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF 6 Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual. Id. The manual refers to the court’s 7 official web site for CM/ECF technical specifications, id. at § 1(i), which include a 8 “computer running Windows or Macintosh”; “[s]oftware to convert documents from a 9 word processor format to [PDF], such as Adobe Acrobat PDF Writer; “Adobe Acrobat 10 7.0 and higher meet the CM/ECF filing requirements”; “PDF compatible word processor 11 like WordPerfect or Word”; “Internet access supporting a transfer rate of 56kb or 12 higher”; a compatible browser, such as Firefox 15.x, Internet Explorer 9.x, or Safari 13 5.1/6.x; and a “[s]canner to image non-computerized documents 400 pixels per inch 14 (ppi),” United States District Court, Southern District of California, CM/ECF: General 15 Info, 16 17 In the motion, Plaintiff states the following: 25 Plaintiff motions this Honorable District Court for leave to electronically file documents. Plaintiff is using a Mac computer that is PDF compatible with Adobe Acrobat 7.0 or higher and PDF Writer. Plaintiffs [sic] computer uses a Safari browser that is compatible to Adobe Acrobat 7.0 or higher, is able to convert to PDF and it's version of 10.1.2 (12603.3.8) exceeds the required 5.1/6x. to work correctly with CM/ECF version 6.1. Plaintiff uses "Pages", which for Mac is similar to Wordperfect or Word and also converts to PDF. Plaintiff has internet access with 56kb or higher and has a scanner to image non-computerized documents at 400(ppi). Plaintiff agrees to follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF Ad1ninistrative Policies and Procedures Manual, agrees to register as a user with the Clerk's Office and is a subscriber to Pacer. (Drury v Barcelona (2016) U.S. District D. Nevada). [Doc. No. 3 at 2.] 26 ///// 27 ///// 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 2 17cv1531-CAB-MDD 1 Because Plaintiff has provided sufficient information required by the CMECF 2 Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion 3 for leave to file electronically. [Doc. No. 3.] 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 1, 2017 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 17cv1531-CAB-MDD

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?