Novel v. Zapor et al

Filing 87

OPINION AND ORDER ORDER denying 33 Motion File Documents Using the Electronic Filing System. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 12/15/2014. (pes1) (This document has been sent by the Clerks Office by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SUR G. NOVEL,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:14-cv-264
Judge Watson
Magistrate Judge King

JEFFERY A. ZAPOR, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel,
brings this action against twenty-two (22) defendants, including
government employees, attorneys, and law firms, in connection with
various state court civil and disciplinary proceedings.
Complaint, ECF 4.

See Amended

All defendants have filed motions to dismiss for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim
for relief, or both.
49, 58, 59, 67.

See ECF 19, 22, 27, 33, 34, 38, 40, 42, 44, 48,

This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff’s

motion, ECF 33, seeking leave to file documents using the Court’s
Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) system.
Plaintiff argues that he should be permitted to file documents in
the ECF system because it is unduly burdensome for him to manually
file documents.

Plaintiff resides in Thailand.

Complaint, ¶ 1.

According to plaintiff, he must cut paper to meet the Court’s
standards because 8 ½” x 11” paper is not sold in Thailand; he must
travel to a post office and wait in line to mail his filings; it is

1

expensive to send mail to the United States from Thailand; and this
action will be delayed because of the time required for mailing
documents from Thailand.

Plaintiff also argues that denying him

access to the ECF system violates anti-trust laws, his Fourteenth
Amendment right to equal protection, and the Treaty of Amity and
Economic Relations between Thailand and the United States of America.
Plaintiff’s arguments are not well taken.
There is a presumption in this Court that pro se litigants will
file documents manually.

The Court’s local rules require all

pleadings, motions, briefs, and other papers presented to the Clerk
for filing to be on 8 ½” x 11” paper and that filings by pro se
litigants be filed on paper.

S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.1(a), (c).

The

Court’s Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures Manual (“ECF
Manual”) also provides that “[p]arties proceeding pro se shall not
file electronically, unless otherwise ordered by the court.”
Manual § 1(A).

ECF

These requirements apply to all pro se litigants,

regardless of whether the litigants are Ohio residents or not.
Plaintiff’s general argument that he must expend more time and money
to prepare and mail his filings is not sufficient overcome the general
presumption that all pro se litigants are required to file documents
manually.

Moreover, the Court notes that defendant Thomas G. Ressing,

who is a former attorney appearing pro se in this matter, has been
filing documents manually and has objected to plaintiff’s use of the
ECF system on the basis that “he is retired, senior, and does not have
computer skills or the ability to handle electronic filing.”

2

ECF 34.

The Court also notes that the history of this case demonstrates that
requiring plaintiff to manually file documents has not affected his
ability to prosecute this action.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion, ECF 33, is DENIED.

December 15, 2014

s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

3