Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sheikh v. Medical Board of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 28, 2010

FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D. PLAINTIFF,
v.
MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frank C. Damrell, Jr. United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on pro per plaintiff Farzana Sheikh, M.D.'s motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's March 18, 2010 order, (1) striking plaintiff's original complaint which was filed by her husband as her "attorney," even though he is not licensed to practice law and (2) granting plaintiff conditional permission to use the court's electronic filing system.*fn1 (Docket #22.) Prior to entry of the magistrate judge's order, plaintiff filed an amended pleading in pro per, seeking review of the Medical Board of California's denial of her application for a physician's license. (Docket #14, filed Feb. 17, 2010.) Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint; the magistrate judge stayed the hearing on that matter pending this court's resolution of the instant motion for reconsideration.*fn2

Because the magistrate judge's instant order raises nondispositive pre-trial issues, review is governed by the "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). As such, the magistrate judge's order cannot be set aside or modified unless the findings of fact are clearly erroneous or the conclusions are contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Grimes v. San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 239-40 (9th Cir. 1991). Having carefully reviewed the magistrate judge's order and plaintiff's motion for reconsideration thereof, the court finds the magistrate's judge order striking the original complaint and granting plaintiff conditional access to electronic filing supported by the record and by proper analysis. As a matter of law, plaintiff's husband cannot represent her in this action because he is not a licenced attorney. E.D. Cal. L.R. 180(b). Plaintiff has properly corrected the defect in the original pleading by filing an amended complaint in pro per, and the grant of conditional permission to use the court's e-filing system is warranted under the circumstances.

Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.