United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO BE EXEMPT
FROM USE OF THE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM
March 8, 2017, the Court received a notice from the Plaintiff
requesting access to the electronic case filing system at
California State Prison-Corcoran (CSP). Plaintiff contends
that he is incarcerated in the Security Housing Unit at CSP
and his efforts to gain access to use of the electronic
filing system to file his complaint have been denied.
Plaintiff requests to be exempt from filing his complaint
through use of the electronic filing system.
March 16, 2017, the Court served a copy of Plaintiff's
request on Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Monica
Anderson and directed a response be filed within fourteen
days. The Court also directed Plaintiff to file a detailed
brief as to how he was denied access to the e-filing system
within twenty-one days.
filed his brief on March 27, 2017. On March 30, 2017, by way
of special appearance, Supervising Deputy Attorney General,
Monica Anderson, filed a response to the Court's order.
The matter is now submitted to the Court for review and
brief, Plaintiff contends that on February 7, 2017, he
attempted to file his initial complaint with the Court, but
it was returned to Plaintiff with instructions to e-file the
complaint pursuant to the court's standing order. On
February 20, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a request to the law
library at CSP to use the electronic filing system. However,
Plaintiff contends the law librarian's response was
disjointed and incoherent. Plaintiff then filed an inmate
appeal regarding denial of access to the court's
electronic filing system.
Office of the Attorney General submits the declaration of Law
Librarian at CSP, S. Parks who declares Mr. Daniels visited
the law library on February 7, 2017. (Decl. S. Parks
¶¶ 1, 5, Resp. Attach A, ECF No. 4.) Mr. Daniels
did not request to file any documents through the CSP-COR
E-filing program on February 7, 2017. (Id.) Mr.
Daniels submitted two Form 22's Request for Interviews on
February 15 and 20, 2017, requesting use of the electronic
filing system. (Id. ¶¶ 6-8.) Mr. Daniels
was incorrectly advised that he had to provide a trust
withdrawal to receive the forms. (Id.) At that time,
Mr. Daniels filed a request to file his complaint without use
of the electronic filing system. (Decl. of M. Kimbrell ¶
7, Resp. Attach. B, ECF No. 4.)
of Mr. Daniels' request to file a complaint without use
of the electronic filing system was provided to the
litigation office at CSP on March 20, 2017. On March 20,
2017, Law Library Officer Bueno spoke with Mr. Daniels
regarding his e-filing. Plaintiff refused to discuss his
e-filing or request to be put on the library schedule. (Decl.
of A. Bueno ¶¶ 2-3, Resp. Attach. C, ECF No. 4.)
Daniels was thereafter issued a ducat to visit the law
library on March 24, 2017, but Daniels' refused to
attend. (Decl. of S. Parks ¶ 10; Decl. of M. Kimbrell
¶ 6.) The Litigation Coordinator at CSP spoke with Mr.
Daniels on March 28, 2017, and offered to e-file his
complaint. However, Mr. Daniels refused and claimed the Court
had already accepted his document. (Decl. of M. Kimbrell
Litigation Coordinator advised Mr. Daniels that if he
submitted his complaint to be e-filed, it would be on file
with the Court and a case number would be issued within days.
However, Mr. Daniels refused to allow the Litigation
Coordinator to e-file his complaint. (Id
on the declarations submitted by Law Librarian S. Parks,
Litigation Coordinator M. Kimbrell, and Law Library Officer
A. Bueno, it is clear that since the filing of Plaintiff s
request he has had access to the electronic filing system but
simply refuses to utilize the procedure. As stated in the
Court's January 4, 2017, order no case on the merits will
be opened until the issue regarding the use of the e-filing
system is resolved unless a civil complaint is otherwise
filed through the Court's e-filing procedures. Thus, it
is incumbent upon Plaintiff to utilize and file his complaint
through the electronic filing system, and based on the
representations submitted by the Office of the Attorney
General Plaintiff has been afforded access to such system.
There is no basis for Court intervention and Mr. Daniels must
comply with the normal procedures pursuant to the Court's
standing order to have his complaint e-filed with this Court.
on the foregoing, Plaintiffs request to be exempt from use of
the electronic filing system to file his complaint is DENIED.