UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 1, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CHARLES HEAD ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frank C. Damrell, Jr. United States District Judge
This matter comes before the court on the motion of plaintiff, United States of America for an order by United States District Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. clarifying three previous orders excluding time under the speedy trial act. The United States noticed and filed this motion on the calendar of United States District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. The United States also emailed the relevant documents to the court room deputy for the undersigned at email@example.com, including a proposed order granting the United State's motion.
The local rules for the Eastern District of California governing criminal motions and procedures provide that "all motions shall be noticed on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge as may be appointed." E.D. Cal. L.R. 430.1(c). Moreover, "[t]he Eastern District of California is an electronic case manage/filing district (CM/ECF)." E.D. Cal. L.R. 133(a). Thus, attorneys shall file all documents electronically pursuant to those Rules." Id. Finally, "[e]mailing a document to the Clerk or to the Court (as opposed to electronic filing in CM/ECF) shall not constitute 'filing' of the document." E.D. Cal. L.R. 134(a).*fn1
The motion of the United States and the accompanying proposed order are procedurally improper as violative of the local rules. First, the motion was not noticed on the undersigned's motion calendar, but rather on the docket for Judge Mueller, to whom this matter has been reassigned. Moreover, the undersigned cannot consider the proposed order because, as stated above, the email sent to firstname.lastname@example.org containing the motion and the proposed order does not constitute a "filing" of the documents pursuant to the local rules.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of the United States is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.