Webb v. Weber County Government et al
Filing
61
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 42 Motion for Leave to File Pleadings Via Email. Plaintiff must submit his filings only in paper by mailing such filings to the Office of the Clerk of Court at the general mailing address for the Court. Plaintiff must submit only one copy of each pleading to the Office of the Clerk. For documents required to be filed with the Court, service to opposing counsel will be effective when counsel receives the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) from the Cou rt. Therefore, Plaintiff is relieved of his responsibility to independently serve opposing counsel. Discovery materials not filed with the Court may be sent directly to opposing counsel. Failure to comply with this ORDER may result in sanctions, including but not limited to the Court striking Plaintiffs filings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 11/14/13. (jlw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION
DAVID WEBB,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
v.
Case No. 1:11-cv-00128-DB-DBP
TIMOTHY SCOTT, et al.,
District Judge Dee Benson
Defendants.
I.
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
INTRODUCTION
This civil rights matter was referred to the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Docket
No. 42.) Throughout this litigation, pro se Plaintiff has caused considerable confusion through
his attempts to file documents with the Court and to serve such documents on opposing counsel.
Plaintiff has emailed proposed documents to various individuals at the Court, both in the Clerk’s
Office and in Chambers. Alternatively, Plaintiff has mailed copies of documents to more than
one person at the Court. He has also served documents on opposing counsel without first filing
them with the Court, creating confusion about when responsive documents should be filed.
Plaintiff now moves for leave to file pleadings via email attachments due to his “extreme” in
forma pauperis status. (Dkt. No. 42 at 1.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES
the motion.
Page 1 of 3
II.
ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLEADINGS
VIA EMAIL ATTACHMENTS
“A court may, by local rule, allow papers to be filed . . . by electronic means . . . .” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5(d)(3). However, in general, neither this Court’s local Rules of Practice nor its local
Administrative Procedures Manual allow papers to be filed by attaching such papers to emails.
See DUCivR 5-1(b) (instructing that papers must be filed in person with the Clerk of Court, in
the filing box located on the Court’s south porch, by mail, or “through the [C]ourt’s electronic
filing system.”); District of Utah CM/ECF and E-filing Administrative Procedures Manual, at ii
(2013) (defining electronic filing as uploading documents “directly from a computer using the
Court’s CM/ECF system.”).
To the extent this Court may interpret Plaintiff’s motion as a request to use the Court’s
electronic filing system, Plaintiff cannot act as an e-filer because he appears pro se. District of
Utah CM/ECF and E-filing Administrative Procedures Manual § I.A.2. Under this Court’s local
Rules of Practice and local Administrative Procedures Manual, only attorneys who are trained
and certified by the Court have permission to file documents electronically in the CM/ECF
system. Id. §§ I.A.1, I.A.3.
III.
ORDERS
For the reasons described above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file
documents via email attachments. (Dkt. No. 42.)
To facilitate orderly process in this matter, the Court issues the following ORDERS:
1. Plaintiff must submit his filings only in paper by mailing such filings to the Office of the
Clerk of Court at the general mailing address for the Court:
Page 2 of 3
United States Court for the District of Utah
Office of the Clerk
350 So. Main Street, Room 150
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
2. Plaintiff must submit only one copy of each pleading to the Office of the Clerk.
3. For documents required to be filed with the Court, service to opposing counsel will be
effective when counsel receives the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) from the Court.
Therefore, Plaintiff is relieved of his responsibility to independently serve opposing
counsel.
4. Discovery materials not filed with the Court may be sent directly to opposing counsel.
5. Failure to comply with this ORDER may result in sanctions, including but not limited to
the Court striking Plaintiff’s filings.
Dated this 14th day of November, 2013.
By the Court:
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 of 3
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?