Fuller v. Holt et al

Filing 95

ORDER denying 89 MOTION for Permission to Add Electronic Case Filing Privileges to a Self-Represented Party's Pacer Account; granting 90 MOTION to Request Disability Accomodations to Better Access the Court Process Itself. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 4/10/2019. (A certified copy of this Order was sent via US mail to Napier Sandford Fuller, 2201 Lynnwood Drive, Wilmington, NC 28403.) (Collins, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NO. 7:18-CV-59-FL

NAPIER SANDFORD FULLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
REBECCA W. HOLT, in her official
capacity as employee of the North Carolina
Office of the Courts, RICHARD A.
BADDOUR, in his official capacity as
employee of the North Carolina
Administrative Office of the Courts,
JAMES C. STANFORD, in his official
capacity as employee of the North Carolina
Administrative Office of the Courts,
JAMES T. BRYAN, III, in his official
capacity as employee of the North Carolina
Administrative Office of the Courts,
SAMANTHA HYATT CABE, in her
official capacity as employee of the North
Carolina Administrative Office of the
Courts, and CATHERINE C. STEVENS,
in her official capacity as employee of the
North Carolina Administrative Office of
the Courts,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on pro se plaintiff’s motions for permission to add electronic
case filing privileges for a self-represented party (DE 89), and to request disability accommodations
to better access the court process (DE 90). In this posture, the issues raised are ripe for ruling. For
the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s motion for permission to electronically file is denied, and
plaintiff’s motion to request disability accommodations is granted.

COURT’S DISCUSSION
A.

Motion to Allow Electronic Filing (DE 89)

Plaintiff first requests the court enable him to file documents electronically through his
PACER account, relying on an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
granting him electronic access for his appeal. Under the Fourth Circuit’s local rules of appellate
procedure, “a person not represented by an attorney: may file electronically only if allowed by court
order or by a local rule.” Local Appellate Rule 25(a)(2)(B)(ii). Pursuant to its Local Rules, the
Fourth Circuit granted plaintiff leave to file electronically. (Order (DE 89-1) at 1).1
The Local Civil Rules of this court differ from the Local Appellate Rules of the Fourth
Circuit. In this district, “[a] pro se party . . . may not file electronically.” Local Civil Rule 5.1(b)(2);
see also Local Civil Rule 5.1(b)(1) (“Only an attorney who is registered in CM/ECF may file
documents electronically.”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.
Plaintiff asks that the court allow him to file electronically 1) as a reasonable accommodation
regarding petitioner’s mental impairment, 2) as a means to keep up with the court deadlines while
abroad, and 3) as a means of due process to access the entire dispute easily. (Mot. (DE 89) at 2).
None of petitioner’s justifications for allowing electronic filing privileges warrant abrogation of the
Local Civil Rules in this case. Plaintiff does not explain how electronically filing documents is
necessary to reasonably accommodate his mental impairments, especially in light of his
demonstrated ability to manually file a variety of pleadings, motions, and supporting documents
throughout the course of this action. (See DE 1-3, 5, 13, 31-32, 34-37, 39, 44, 49, 56, 68-69, 72, 74,

1

The court refers to the Fourth Circuit’s order by the district court’s CM/ECF entry. Plaintiff uploaded a copy
of the order in support of his motion.

2

76, 78-80, 83-84, 87, 89-90). Electronic filing is not necessary to keep up with court deadlines while
abroad, because plaintiff may still sign up as a “receiving user” in CM/ECF, thereby providing him
with updates regarding district court filings. See Local Civil Rule 5.1(b)(2). Finally, plaintiff has
not been denied due process by being required to file his documents manually as opposed to
electronically. Therefore, the court denies plaintiff’s request abrogate the Local Rules and allow him
to file electronically.
B.

Motion to Request Disability Accommodations (DE 90)

Upon consideration of the motion for disability accommodations to better access the court
process, the court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for permission to add electronic case filing
privileges (DE 89) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion to request disability accommodations (DE 90) is
GRANTED. The clerk is DIRECTED to notify the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit of this order.
SO ORDERED, this the 10th day of April, 2019.

_____________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

3