Mascorro v. The City of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Mascorro v. City of San Diego (2026-07-31) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion to file two new complaints via email due to a lack of government ID and funds. The court denied the motion, noting the plaintiff had previously filed other cases without special access and that the IFP statute allows for fee waivers rather than procedural changes to filing methods.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to File Two New Complaints by Email is denied.“Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion [ECF No. 26] is DENIED.” | agree with court The court's decision is supported by the record recited in the order. The plaintiff had successfully filed three other complaints in the preceding seven months without the requested accommodation, demonstrating that the claimed barriers (lack of ID and funds) did not prevent him from accessing the court. Furthermore, the court correctly identified that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 provides a mechanism for waiving fees, which addresses the financial aspect of the plaintiff's request, while the lack of ID is a procedural hurdle the plaintiff has already overcome in other cases. The denial is a reasonable exercise of the court's administrative discretion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but logically sound. It addresses the plaintiff's specific arguments (lack of ID, lack of funds) by pointing to his recent history of successful filings without the requested accommodation and by citing the statutory provision for fee waivers. It does not need to address complex legal standards because the denial is based on administrative necessity and the plaintiff's demonstrated ability to file through other means.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELOY MASCORRO, Case No.: 21cv1427-LL-AGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO FILE TWO NEW COMPLAINTS BY EMAIL 14 THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO; PARK RANGER JOHN DOE; SAN DIEGO 15 [ECF No. 26] POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS 1- 16 4; THE SAN DIEGO FIRE DEPARTMENT; EMTS 1-3, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 On March 21, 2021, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an 22 “Emergency Motion to File Two New Complaints by Email.” ECF No. 26. Plaintiff states, 23 “I am requesting, and have requested in past motions, to be allowed to file a new complaint 24 by email due to not having a government ID to enter the Court and not having enough 25 money to print and mail new complaints.” Plaintiff explains that these two complaints are 26 “new,” and are not amendments to any of his currently pending complaints. Plaintiff has 27 already been denied permission to access the court without any government identification. 28 Additionally, within the last seven months Plaintiff has managed to file the complaint in 1 ||the instant case, as well as two other complaints (see 21cv1725 and 21cv2012), without 2 || being granted the special access he seeks here. Finally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court is 3 permitted to waive litigation expenses beyond the filing the fees imposed by the Court. 4 || See Hadsell v. Comm’r Internal Revenue Service, 107 F.3d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 1997); Dixon 5 Yist, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 6 || 1989) (per curiam). Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion [ECF No. 26] is DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: March 23, 2022 NO 9 DE 10 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28