Mascorro v. The City of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELOY MASCORRO, Case No. 21-cv-01725-BAS-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. 14 THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 15 Defendants. RECONSIDERATION; AND 16 (2) GRANTING IN PART AND 17 DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 18 MOTION TO ACCESS COURT AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS 19 20 (ECF No. 7)

21 22 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Previously, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status but denied 25 him appointed counsel. (ECF No. 4.) Mascorro now moves for reconsideration of the 26 Court’s denial of appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 7.) In the same motion, Mascorro 27 requests the Court’s permission to enter the court buildings without presenting 28 government-issued identification. Mascorro also seeks the Court’s leave to serve and file 1 court documents by email, and access the court electronic filing and docketing systems for 2 free. (Id.) The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers 3 submitted and without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). 4 5 II. MOTION TO ENTER COURT AND ACCESS ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS 6 A. Accessing Court Premises 7 Mascorro requests the Court’s permission to access the courthouse without having 8 to present a government-issued identification, so that he can save the time and cost of filing 9 motions. The public interest in securing the courthouse by requiring all entrants present 10 government-issued identification outweighs Mascorro’s interest to save time or costs to 11 litigate his case. Further, the Court will grant Mascorro leave to file documents 12 electronically, which alleviates Mascorro’s hardship from filing documents by mail. Thus, 13 the Court DENIES Mascorro’s request for permission to enter the court premises without 14 presenting a government-issued identification. 15 16 B. Serving and Filing Documents by E-mail 17 Mascorro seeks the Court’s leave to file documents and receive notifications of court 18 filings by email. The Court construes this request as a request for permission to use the 19 Court’s CM/ECF filing system to electronically file documents and receive electronic 20 notice of case-related transmissions. Mascorro has sufficiently stated that he has access to 21 the necessary equipment and software capabilities to electronically file documents. The 22 Court thus GRANTS Mascorro’s motion to file documents and receive notifications using 23 the Court’s CM/ECF system in accordance with ECF Administrative Policies and 24 Procedures.1 On or before December 22, 2021, Mascorro must register as a CM/ECF 25 user with the Clerk’s Office. 26 27 28 1 Mascorro also asks for the Court’s permission to serve documents to opposing 2 counsel by email. The Court DENIES this request WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court 3 will reconsider this request once opposing counsel files an appearance. 4 5 C. Free Access to the PACER System 6 Mascorro also moves for the Court’s leave to gain free access to PACER, which the 7 Court will grant. The Court has already granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP and 8 finds that Mascorro falls within the class of users eligible for a fee exemption listed in the 9 Electronic Public Access fee schedule adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United 10 States. Mascorro has demonstrated that a fee exemption is necessary to avoid unreasonable 11 burdens in litigating this case. The Court therefore GRANTS Mascorro an exemption 12 from fees for PACER usage. This exemption covers only fees associated with filing and 13 accessing the electronic documents in this action. Mascorro shall not be exempt from the 14 payment of fees incurred in connection with other uses of the PACER system.2 15 16 III. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 17 In an Order dated October 12, 2021, the Court denied Mascorro’s motion for 18 appointed counsel, finding that Mascorro is capable of legibly articulating the facts and 19 circumstances relevant to the claims raised in the Complaint. (ECF No. 4.) In the motion 20 for reconsideration (ECF No. 7), Mascorro argues that the Court should account for his 21 hardship as a homeless person, including (1) lack of permanent mailing address and 22 financial resources to send and receive documents by mail; (2) limited access to 23 transportation; and (3) lack of government-issued identification to enter the court premises. 24 The Court’s grant of leave for Mascorro to file documents by CM/ECF and download his 25 court documents free of charge alleviates his concerns about his limitations in sending or 26 receiving documents by mail. While the Court does not discount Mascorro’s other 27 2 Mascorro is advised to review https://pacer.uscourts.gov/my-account-billing/billing/options- 28 1 ||hardships stemming from homelessness, the Court does not find that Mascorro’s motion 2 || for reconsideration demonstrates “exceptional circumstances” that would require the Court 3 ||to appoint a pro bono counsel for Mascorro. See Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of 4 || America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). 5 Therefore, the Court DENIES Mascorro’s motion for reconsideration. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 A , 9 || DATED: December 8, 2021 Lin A (Bashan. 6 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _4A.