UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 3, 2012
SUSAN HUBBARD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PERMISSION FOR ELECTRONIC CASE FILING (ECF No. 7)
Plaintiff Raymond Baldhosky is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.)
The Court has not yet screened Plaintiff's Complaint. On September 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing to allow him to e-file documents in this Court's CM/ECF case management system. (ECF No. 7.) This Motion is now before the Court.
Plaintiff does not have a right to e-file documents with the Court. A pro se party is to file and serve paper documents. Local Rule 133(a). However, a pro se party may utilize electronic filing with permission of the Court. Local Rules 133(b)(2), 183(c). A request to utilize electronic filing shall be submitted as a stipulation, Local Rule 143, or if a stipulation can not be had as a written motion setting out an explanation of the reasons therefore. Local Rule 133(b)(3).
At this early stage of the proceedings, it is not clear that the relief requested is supported by good cause and would further the interests of the parties or the Court. Absent some presently unforseen development in this case, there is nothing further Plaintiff will be required to file before his case is screened. The fact Plaintiff characterizes himself as disabled and living some distance from the Court does not suggest a need for e-filing. Paper filing by mail is acceptable and generally does not require a party travel to the courthouse.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing (ECF No. 7) is DENIED but without prejudice to Plaintiff moving the Court again if reasons beyond those presently known are shown to exist and justify e-filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.