In re Carla McEwen v. Michael Koch, Chapter 13 Trustee
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se appellant's request for the Clerk to search court records for specific names and properties, and a request to correct her email address of record. The court denied the request for the Clerk to conduct research but granted the request to update the email address.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Appellant's request for the Clerk to search court indexes, records, calendars, and dockets for specific names and properties.“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 legal research or data retrieval on behalf of a litigant. The court provided the standard alternative means of access (PACER and public terminals). |
Grant of Appellant's request to correct her email address of record.“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 has the inherent authority to manage its own records and ensure that contact information for parties is accurate. Granting a party's request to update their own contact information is a standard administrative function. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the distinction between the right of access to records and the lack of a duty to perform research. It also appropriately exercises administrative control over the docket's contact information.
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-02845-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 MICHAEL KOCH, CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE, 15 Appellee. 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. 12). 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