UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 13, 2008
GUY W. PARKER, PLAINTIFF,
BETTY W. CLINGERMAN, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge
ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENTS; DENYING ENTRY OF DEFAULT; and DENYING LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY
Plaintiff Guy W. Parker, appearing pro se, has electronically filed several documents including some documents he designates as notices including a "Notice of Adjudicative Facts" [doc. #8]; a "Notice of Appearance" [doc. #10]; a "Notice of Early Neutral Evaluation Report 2" [doc. #11]; "Early Neutral Evaluation Report 3" [doc. #14]; and an affidavit in support of default [doc. #15]. In seeking leave to file documents electronically, plaintiff stated that he agreed to follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual ("CM/ECF Manual"). (Motion at 1 [doc. #4]). In granting plaintiff leave, the Court advised plaintiff to thoroughly review the CM/ECF Manual for correct filing procedures and to "comply with the ECF Policies and Procedures, the Civil Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure notwithstanding his pro se status. Failure to comply with the Rules of Court may result in the document(s) being stricken from the record." (Order filed February 12, 2008 [doc. Plaintiff has improperly filed the documents listed above. The filings are not in compliance with the CM/ECF Manual. Nor are the documents in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Civil Local Rules.
Once a complaint is filed, service of process must be effectuated in conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has already been required to strike plaintiff's return of service filed on February 8, 2008 because of deficiencies. (See Order filed February 12, 2008 [doc. #7]). Defendant filed a "Notice of Failure to Serve Defendant" on March 5, 2008 which correctly sets forth the problems with plaintiff's attempted but incomplete service of process. Plaintiff filed two documents entitled "response" to defendant's notice re: service on March 11, 2008 and on March 12, 2008 [doc. #15, 16] that appear to be plaintiff's attempt to have default entered. The Court construes plaintiff's "affidavits" as requests for entry of default. Because service has not been properly effectuated, entry of default against defendant is D ENIED.
Additionally, plaintiff's filings are not in proper form, are irrelevant at this point in the proceedings, and are vexatious and burdensome. If a complaint is properly served, defendant must answer the complaint or file an appropriate response to the complaint, e.g., a motion to dismiss. Only after the answer is filed or a motion to dismiss has been denied, does the magistrate judge schedule an Early Neutral Evaluation conference. Plaintiff's repeated filing of "early neutral evaluation reports" is not appropriate in the absence of an order of the court; therefore, plaintiff's "Notice of Adjudicative Facts" [doc. #8]; a "Notice of Appearance" [doc. #10]; a "Notice of Early Neutral Evaluation Report 2" [doc. #11]; and "Early Neutral Evaluation Report 3" [doc. #14] are STRICKEN from the record.
If plaintiff seeks a ruling from the Court, he must file a motion as set forth in Civil Local Rule 7.1. If an opposing party files a motion, plaintiff must serve an opposition to the motion, again as set forth in Civil Local Rule 7.1. Further failure to comply with the Rules of Court may lead to the imposition of sanction on plaintiff.
Finally, because plaintiff has abused the electronic filing protocol, the Court VACATES its February 8, 2008 Order permitting plaintiff to file documents electronically. Accordingly, "all documents submitted for filing to the Clerk's Office by parties appearing without an attorney must be in legible paper form." CM/ECF §2(b)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.