In re Carla McEwen v. Shoot for the Moon Sales Consultants, LLC DBP et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se litigant's request for the Clerk to search court records for specific information and to correct her email address on file. The court denied the request for record searches but granted the request to update the email address.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of request for Clerk to search court records“Accordingly, this request is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the common-law right to inspect judicial records does not impose an affirmative duty on the Clerk to perform research or search for specific data on a litigant's behalf. The court provided the appropriate alternative means of access (PACER and public terminals). |
Grant of request to correct email address“This request is granted and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to correct Appellant’s email address on file to mcewencarla@proton.me.” | agree with court The court properly granted the administrative request to update the litigant's contact information to ensure proper service and communication. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and correctly applies the distinction between the right of access to records and the absence of a duty to perform research. It provides the correct alternative for accessing records (PACER) and appropriately handles the administrative email correction.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 Case No.: 26-cv-02710-DMS-JAC 9 IN RE CARLA MCEWEN, 10 Debtor, Bankruptcy No.: 25-03821-JBM13 11 CARLA MCEWEN, ORDER RESOLVING 12 Appellant, APPELLANT’S REQUESTS 13 v. 14 SHOOT FOR THE MOON SALES CONSULTANTS, LLC DBP et al., 15 Appellees. 16 17 On August 7, 2026, Appellant Carla McEwen, proceeding pro se, filed a letter to the 18 Clerk of Court making two requests. (ECF No. 15). Appellant requests that the Clerk 19 search the Court’s indexes, records, calendars, and dockets for her name, the property, her 20 case numbers, a specific email address, and the name “Jodi Lee.” (Id. at 1–2). Although 21 Appellant invokes the common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records, that right 22 does not oblige the Clerk to conduct research on a litigant’s behalf. (Id. at 2 (citing Nixon 23 v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)); see Citizens for Quality Educ. S.D. 24 v. Barrera, 333 F. Supp. 3d 1003, 1031 n.20 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (“It is not the court’s duty to 25 do a litigant’s legal research.” (citation modified)). The Court’s records are available to 26 Appellant through PACER or the public terminals in the Clerk’s Office. Accordingly, this 27 request is denied. Appellant additionally requests that her email address of record be 28 corrected. This request is granted and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to correct 1 || Appellant’s email address on file to mcewencarla@proton.me. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: August 24, 2026 2» A fon yn. 5 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Citizens for Quality Educ. San Diego v. Barrera Case No. 17-cv-1054-BAS-JMA · 2018-09-25