(PC) Urmancheev v. Ndoh ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALIM S. URMANCHEEV, Case No. 1:21-cv-00255-AWI-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION REQUESTING ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC 13 v. CASE FILING SYSTEM 14 R. NDOH, et al., (Doc. No. 10) 15 Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED MOTION TO SCREEN 16 COMPLAINT 17 (Doc. No. 11) 18 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner1, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action 19 filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting 20 access to the Court’s electronic case filing system and his construed motion requesting screening 21 of his initial complaint. 22 Electronic Case Filing System 23 Plaintiff requests access to the court’s electronic case filing system. (Doc. No. 10). The 24 Court utilizes a case management electronic case filing system (CM/ECF) which requires 25 attorneys to adhere to electronic procedures in the Court’s Local Rules to file documents 26 electronically. L.R. 133(a). Pro se parties are specifically exempted, and indeed prohibited, from 27 1 It is presumed that Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated given his recent notice of change of 28 address. (Doc. No. 12). 1 utilizing electronic filing unless granted permission from the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge. 2 L.R. 133(b)(2); L.R. 183(c). Any requests from an exempted party to utilize electronic filing 3 “shall be submitted as stipulations as provided in L.R. 143.” L.R. 133(b)(3). If a stipulation 4 cannot be obtained, the moving party shall include in his request “an explanation of the reasons 5 for the exception.” Id. 6 While the Court acknowledges Plaintiff cannot obtain a stipulation since no Defendant has 7 been served, he does not include a sufficient explanation as to why he should be exempted form 8 the Court’s Local Rules. Plaintiff merely states he should be granted access to the Court’s 9 electronic case filing system because he “has access to the internet, computer and software, as 10 Adobe Acrobat, which satisfy the requirements installed by the US courts.” (Doc. No. 10). 11 Plaintiff’s access to the internet and a computer does not satisfy this Court’s requirements nor 12 does it explain why this Court should not adhere to its local rules which prohibits pro se parties 13 from utilizing the electronic case filing system. 14 Request to Screen Complaint 15 Plaintiff’s motion to file a first amended complaint (Doc. No. 11) requests the Court 16 “review [his] complaint, determine deficiencies, and for leave to correct them by amending his 17 complaint.” Liberally construed, Plaintiff is requesting the Court screen his initial complaint. 18 District courts possess inherent authority not governed “by rule or statute, but by control 19 necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 20 expeditious disposition of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016) (citations omitted). 21 And while this Court endeavors to handle all matters as expeditiously as possible, it has “one of 22 the heaviest caseloads in the nation” and operates under a declared judicial emergency due to 23 unfilled judicial vacancies, which is further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. See 24 Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of 25 California. This order effectively grants Plaintiff’s motion to the extent the Court acknowledges 26 Plaintiff’s Complaint is pending and requires screening. 27 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 28 1. Plaintiff’s motion requesting access to the Court’s electronic case filing system (Doc. 1 No. 10) is DENIED. 2 2. Plaintiffs construed motion for a screening order (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED to the 3 extent a screening order will be forthcoming. 4 > | Dated: _ April 4, 2023 Mile. □□□ foareA Zacks 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28