Scott Desrosiers v. Dr. Mildred Garcia, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Scott Desrosiers moved for leave to file documents electronically via PACER-CM/ECF. The court denied the motion without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the necessary equipment, capabilities, and compliance with ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Electronically File Documents“The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 15.)” | agree with court The court's decision is consistent with the local administrative requirements for electronic filing, which typically require a party to demonstrate technical capability and agreement to abide by ECF policies. The order explicitly cites the lack of such a statement as the basis for denial and allows for renewal, making the procedural handling appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a short, procedural ruling that correctly applies the local administrative standards for electronic filing. It identifies the specific deficiency in the plaintiff's motion (failure to state capability/compliance) and provides a clear path for relief (renewal with additional information). The reliance on a similar district court order is appropriate for this type of administrative matter.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 SCOTT DESROSIERS, Case No. 26-cv-02111-BAS-DEB 17 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 18 v. MOTION TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE DOCUMENTS (ECF No. 15) 19 DR. MILDRED GARCIA, et al., 20 Defendants. 21 22 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Scott Desrosiers’s motion requesting leave to 23 file electronically using PACER-CM/ECF. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff, however, fails to state 24 he has the necessary equipment and capabilities to electronically file documents or that he 25 can ensure his compliance with ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures. Cf In re 26 Cisse, No. 20-CV-01694-BAS-WVG, 2020 WL 6561426, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2020). 27 The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 15.) This decision is 28 made without prejudice, and Plaintiff may renew his motion with additional information | ||}regarding his capacity to file electronically and his compliance with ECF Administrative 2 Policies and Procedures. Additionally, the Court notes Plaintiff can file motions and 3 || associated papers with the Court via mail service if he chooses not to renew his motion. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ~ 6 || DATED: June 12, 2026 (yatta Bahar te 7 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9_