Oliver v. River City Process Service, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion to file electronically via CM/ECF. The court denied the motion because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate access to the required equipment and software, and because it was unclear if his current place of incarceration participated in the prisoner e-filing program.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to File Electronically denied“The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has not provided sufficiently detailed information for the Court to determine he has access to adequate equipment and software... Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.” | agree with court The court applied the local administrative policies requiring pro se litigants to demonstrate the means to file electronically. The order recites that the plaintiff did not demonstrate sufficient internet access or a compatible browser, and cited a similar district court order for the proposition that failure to specify equipment results in denial. The court also noted the plaintiff's incarceration status as a factor. The decision follows the stated local rules and the record provided in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the local rules and administrative policies governing pro se e-filing. It applies the specific technical requirements (internet speed, browser, software) to the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate compliance. The citation to Weiss supports the denial based on lack of demonstrated equipment. The citation to Morgan is persuasive but from a different district; however, the court's primary reliance is on the local manual's requirement to demonstrate means. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited local authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY OLIVER, Case No.: 23-cv-1739-DMS-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY 14 RIVER CITY PROCESS SERVICE, INC. et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Anthony Oliver’s Motion to File 19 Electronically through CM/ECF (“Motion”). (ECF No. 2.) For the following reasons, the 20 Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 21 Generally, “[e]xcept as prescribed by local rule, order, or other procedure, the Court 22 has designated all cases to be assigned to the Electronic Filing System.” Civ. L.R. 5.4(a). 23 With respect to pro se litigants, however, “[u]nless otherwise authorized by the court, all 24 documents submitted for filing to the Clerk's Office . . . must be in legible, paper form.” 25 Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 26 Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, § 2(b) (2018). “A 27 pro se party seeking leave to electronically file documents must file a motion and 28 demonstrate the means to do so properly by stating their equipment and software 1 ||capabilities in addition to agreeing to follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF 2 || Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.” Jd. The manual refers to the Court’s 3 || official web site for CM/ECF technical specifications, id. at § 1(4), which include 4 “[s]oftware to convert documents from a word processor format to [PDF],” such as “Adobe 5 || Acrobat 7.0 and higher’; a “word processing program|[ ]”; “Internet access supporting a 6 || transfer rate of 56kb or higher’; a compatible browser, such as Firefox 15, Internet Explorer 7 and Safari 5.1/6 or later version; and a “[s]canner to image non-computerized documents 8 ||400 pixels per inch (ppi).” United States District Court, Southern District of California, 9 || CM/ECF Information: General Info, https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.aspx (last 10 || visited Sept. 26, 2023). 11 Here, Plaintiff does not demonstrate he has sufficient internet access, or access to a 12 ||compatible browser. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has not provided sufficiently 13 || detailed information for the Court to determine he has access to adequate equipment and 14 ||software. See Weiss v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, No. 22-cv-1098, 2022 WL 19334073, at 15 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2022) (denying plaintiff's motion to file electronically because 16 |/plaintiff failed to specify he had access to sufficient equipment and software). 17 || Furthermore, the Court is aware Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Coffee Correctional 18 Facility. It is not clear to the Court if this Facility participates in prisoner e-filing. See 19 || Morgan v. Dzurenda, No. 14-cv-966, 2015 WL 728523, at *3 (D. Conn. Feb. 19, 2015) 20 ||(denying leave to file documents electronically because the plaintiff “is not currently 21 incarcerated at a facility that participates in the prisoner efiling program”). Therefore, the 22 ||Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiff must serve Defendants within 90 days after 23 || filing his Complaint, or this action will be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. □□□□□ 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: September 27, 2023 , Vine Yn. 27 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge 28 United States District Court