UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 19, 2012
DOCTOR AMADI, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF FILING (DOC. 63) FORTY-FIVE DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Francisco Gil ("Plaintiff") was formerly in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed March 18, 2010, against Defendant Amadi for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment and negligence. Plaintiff currently resides in Mexico after being removed from the United States of America following his release from incarceration.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion, filed April 11, 2012, requesting permission to utilize the Court's electronic filing system. See L.R. 133(b)(3) ("Requests to use paper or electronic filing as exceptions from these Rules shall be submitted as . . . written motions setting out an explanation of reasons for the exception. Points and authorities are not required, and no argument or hearing will normally be held."). Pro se litigants are not typically permitted to utilize electronic filing.
Plaintiff contends that electronic case filing is necessary in this action because Plaintiff no longer resides in the United States of America. Plaintiff contends that the mail system in Mexico is unreliable and at times it has taken up to sixty days to receive and respond to court orders.
Plaintiff may however, receive notice of Court Orders and filings by Defendant via email from the Court's electronic filing system. In order to do this Plaintiff must provide the court with an email address.
The Court does not find good cause to grant Plaintiff electronic case filing privileges. Based on the court docket, there has been some delay in communications between the Court and Plaintiff. However, the Court has compensated for such delay by providing additional time for Plaintiff to receive and file documents. Plaintiff will still be required to serve and file documents by regular mail.*fn1
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request to utilize the Court's electronic case filing system, filed April 11, 2012, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.