(PC) Robinson v. Cryer ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFERY DONELL ROBINSON, Case No. 1:20-cv-00980-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE DOCUMENTS 13 v. TO THE COURTS 14 C. CRYER, ET. AL., (Doc. No. 35) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “motion requesting to . . . electronically file 18 documents to the Courts and to the California Deputy Attorney General.” (Doc. No. 35). Plaintiff 19 asks for access to the Court’s case management electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). (Id. at 20 1). Plaintiff states that he has access to an Android tablet and believes electronically filing will 21 assist him in this case. (Id.). Plaintiff initiated this action as a prisoner proceeding pro se by 22 filing a prisoner civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff is no 23 longer incarcerated nut continues in this action pro se. (Doc. Nos. 37, 38). 24 The Court utilizes CM/ECF, which requires attorneys to adhere to electronic procedures in 25 the Court’s Local Rules to file documents electronically. Local Rule 133(a) (E.D. Cal. March 1, 26 2020). Pro se parties are specifically exempted, and indeed prohibited, from utilizing electronic 27 filing unless granted permission from the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 28 133(b)(2); Local Rule 183(c). Any requests from an exempted party to utilize electronic filing 1 | “shall be submitted as stipulations as provided in L.R. 143.” Local Rule 133(b)(3). Ifa 2 | stipulation cannot be obtained, the moving party shall include in his request “an explanation of 3 | the reasons for the exception.” Jd. 4 Here, the parties do not so stipulate. Further, while the Court is sensitive to the challenges 5 | Plaintiff faces as a pro se litigant, the Court does not find Plaintiff's reasons constitute sufficient 6 | grounds to be granted an exemption from conventional filing. This result is consistent with other 7 | orders issued in the Eastern District of California. See Lucero v. Pennella, Case No. 1:18-cv- 8 | 01448-LJO-SAB, 2018 WL 5793429, *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2018) (denying pro se plaintiff's 9 | motion for reconsideration order denying access to CM/ECF). 10 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 11 Plaintiff's motion to electronically file documents (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED. 12 'S | Dated: __June 9, 2022 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth 14 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28