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.

John L. Harris Iii v. Kamala Harris

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 7, 2011

JOHN L. HARRIS III, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KAMALA HARRIS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Presently before the court is plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 10) of the undersigned's order (Dkt. No. 8) denying plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Electronically (Dkt. No. 2). Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel in this action.*fn1

In his Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 10), plaintiff describes his difficulties using transportation, using crutches, and moving through the courthouse security station, all of which are due to his ongoing recovery from knee surgery. (Id. at 3-6.) However, plaintiff also clarifies that he does not "introduce any new legal theories or matters which require resolution" but that he introduces "additional information, which was known [to plaintiff] but he did not believe was necessary." (Id. at 1-2.)*fn2 Plaintiff also clarifies that he "only submitted his request[] . . . to file electronically because it seemed to be the most prudent and responsible thing to do, given the circumstances, but not because of any 'unique burden' presented by having to file conventionally." (Id. at 7.)

While the undersigned sympathizes with plaintiff's difficulties and appreciates plaintiff's candor in his representations, the undersigned nonetheless denies plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 10.) Plaintiff's flurry of filings in the past two weeks (Dkt. Nos. 1-12) suggests that whatever physical challenges plaintiff faces, he has found a way to overcome those challenges and has not faced prohibitive obstacles in completing his filings.

The undersigned also notes that plaintiff has neglected to set hearing dates for his Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 10) and for his pending Motion to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. Nos. 11-12.) E.D. Local Rule 230(b) ("[A]ll motions shall be noticed on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge. The moving party shall file a notice of motion, motion, accompanying briefs, affidavits, if appropriate, and copies of all documentary evidence that the moving party intends to submit in support of the motion. The matter shall be set for hearing on the motion calendar of the Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom the action has been assigned or before whom the motion is to be heard not less than twenty-eight (28) days after service and filing of the motion . . . ."). While the undersigned recognizes that plaintiff appears to have been diligently attempting to comply with the Eastern District Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned nonetheless notes that plaintiff has failed to comply with several applicable rules of litigation procedure on several occasions to date. In particular, plaintiff has violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) as described in the undersigned's order of August 24, 2011 (Dkt. No. 9), and plaintiff has now violated Eastern District Local Rule 230(b) with respect to his two currently-pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 10-12). Accordingly, at this time the undersigned declines to permit an exception to the court's prohibition on pro se plaintiffs' use of the electronic filing system, and the undersigned therefore denies plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.

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.