Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Darryl Hubbard v. C.D. Hougland
January 11, 2013
DARRYL HUBBARD, PLAINTIFF,
C.D. HOUGLAND, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Allison Claire United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner represented by counsel,*fn1
proceeds with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. This case involves an allegation of excessive force that
occurred on July 7, 2008 by defendant guards Hougland and McBride.
Before the court are the following motions filed by plaintiff: a
motion for electronic filing, filed October 22, 2012; a motion to
continue the discovery deadline, filed November 29, 2012; a second
motion for order granting plaintiff leave to file electronically,
filed December 3, 2012; and a second motion for extension of time to
complete discovery, filed December 21, 2012. Defendants have not
responded to any of these motions.
Turning first to plaintiff's motions for leave to file electronically, plaintiff's request will be denied for two reasons. Initially, plaintiff's request is moot because, as a represented party, any documents filed by his attorney shall be filed electronically per Local Rule 133(a) ("Unless excused by the Court or by the electronic filing procedures set forth in these Rules, attorneys shall file all documents electronically pursuant to those Rules."). Next, although the Eastern District of California is an electronic management/filing district, unrepresented persons are required to file and serve paper documents unless the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge grants leave to utilize electronic filing. Local Rule 133(a) & (b)(2). A request to use electronic filing by a pro se party as an exception to the rule may be made as a written motion setting out an explanation of reasons for the requested exception. Local Rule 133(b)(3). The court has reviewed plaintiff's motions and finds that they lack the necessary explanation of reasons to file electronically. Plaintiff's first motion states, in its entirety, "Plaintiff is requesting permission to file on-line via the CM/ECF system." Doc. No. 109. Plaintiff's second motion states, again in its entirety, "Plaintiff is requesting permission to file on-line via the CMECF sys [sic]. Please note this is my 2nd request." Doc. No. 113. Neither of these motions "set[s] out an explanation of reasons for the exception." Local Rule 133(b)(3).
With respect to plaintiff's motions to extend the discovery deadline, the court notes that, by order dated April 5, 2010, the scheduling order in this case was vacated pending resolution of defendants' motion to dismiss. See Doc. No. 63. Defendants' motion to dismiss was only recently resolved, see Doc. No. 110, and no further scheduling orders have yet issued. The court will issue a modified scheduling order following the February 6, 2012 hearing on plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's October 22, 2012 and December 3, 2012 motions for electronic filing are denied; and
2. Plaintiff's November 29, 2012 and December 21, 2012 motions to continue the ...
Buy This Entire Record For