United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER: (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY, AND (2)
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITIVE
STATEMENT (ECF NOS. 54, 56)
Janis L. Sammartino, United States District Judge.
before the Court are Plaintiff Michael Hucul’s Motion
for Leave to File Electronically (CM/ECF Mot., ECF No. 54)
and Motion for a More Definitive Statement, for ECF Nos. 33
& 36 (Rule 12(e) Mot., ECF No. 56). Having considered
Plaintiff’s arguments and the law, the Court DENIES
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s CM/ECF Motion (ECF No.
54) and DENIES Plaintiff’s Rule 12(e) Motion (ECF No.
“[e]xcept as prescribed by local rule, order, or other
procedure, the Court has designated all cases to be assigned
to the Electronic Filing System.” Civ. L.R. 5.4(a).
With respect to pro se litigants, however, “[u]nless
otherwise authorized by the court, all documents submitted
for filing to the Clerk’s Office . . . must be in
legible, paper form.” Office of the Clerk, United
States District Court for the Southern District of
California, Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies
and Procedures Manual § 2(b) (2015).
A pro se party seeking leave to electronically file documents
must file a motion and demonstrate the means to do so
properly by stating their equipment and software capabilities
in addition to agreeing to follow all rules and policies in
the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.
Id. The manual refers to the court’s official
web site for CM/ECF technical specifications, id. at
§ 1(i), which include a “computer running Windows
or Macintosh”; “[s]oftware to convert documents
from a word processor format to [PDF], such as Adobe Acrobat
PDF Writer; “Adobe Acrobat 7.0 and higher meet the
CM/ECF filing requirements”; “PDF compatible word
processor like WordPerfect or Word”; “Internet
access supporting a transfer rate of 56kb or higher”; a
compatible browser, such as Firefox 15.x, Internet Explorer
9.x, or Safari 5.1/6.x; and a “[s]canner to image
non-computerized documents 400 pixels per inch (ppi), ”
United States District Court, S.D. California, CM/ECF:
(last visited July 8, 2016).
Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s prior motion
for leave to file electronically for failing to make the
requisite showing. (See ECF No. 34.) In the instant
motion, Plaintiff explains that he
is using a Mac computer with Safari that is PDF compatible
with Adobe Acrobat 7.0 or higher and PDF Writer. Plaintiff
has internet access with 56kb or higher and has a scanner to
image non-computerized documents at 400(ppi). Plaintiff
agrees to follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF
Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual . . . .
(ECF No. 54 at 1.) Although the instant CM/ECF Motion
demonstrates that Plaintiff’s equipment and software
meets most of the technical specifications required, it is
unclear whether Plaintiff’s Safari browser is
compatible and whether Plaintiff’s computer has a
“PDF compatible word processor like WordPerfect or
Word.” Because Plaintiff still has not provided
sufficient information, the Court again DENIES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s CM/ECF Motion (ECF No. 54).
See, e.g., Procopio v. Conrad Prebys Trust,
No. 14CV1651 AJB KSC, 2015 WL 4662407, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Aug.
6, 2015) (denying motion for electronic filing access where
plaintiff “does not provide sufficient information [as
required in the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures
Manual] for the Court to grant his request”);
Rojas-Vega v. U.S. Citizenship Immigration Serv.,
No. 13-CV-172-LAB, 2013 WL 2417937, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 31,
2013) (“It is incumbent on [movant] to show he is able
to file documents electronically, and reliably receive
electronic notices, and his motion fails to do that.”).
“Plaintiff respectfully motions this Honorable District
Court for a more ‘Definitive Statement’ regarding
‘join’ and ‘joinder’ from Defendants
Steven M. Bishop and the Law Office of Steven M. Bishop and
Jeremy A. Martin and The Law Office of Jeremy Martin, (ECF
Nos., 33 & 36).” (Rule 12(e) Mot. 2, ECF No. 56.)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), “[a] party
may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which
a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or
ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a
response.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)
provides that “[o]nly these pleadings are allowed: (1)
a complaint; (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) an answer to a
counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; (4) an answer to a
crossclaim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) an answer to a
third-party complaint; and (7) if the court orders one, a
reply to an answer.”
12(e) . . . does not provide for a responsive pleading to a
motion to dismiss. Therefore, as a responsive pleading to
defendant’s motion to dismiss is not permitted or
required in the present case under Rule 12(e), the plaintiff
is not entitled to a more definite statement with respect to
that motion.” Kenney v. Fox, 132 F.Supp. 305,
307 (W.D. Mich. 1955), aff’d, 232 F.2d 288
(6th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 855, 856.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Rule 12(e)
Motion. (ECF No. 56.) The briefing schedule ordered on June
27, 2016 remains unchanged. (See ECF No. 35.)
light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiffs CM/ECF Motion (ECF No. 54) and DENIES ...