Arnold v. United States District Court

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 MARIE ENCAR ARNOLD, Case No. 1:23-cv-00266-ADA-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. FOR ELECTRONIC FILING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, et (Doc. 7) al.

Defendants.

18 Plaintiff Marie Encar Arnold (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this action filed on February 22, 2023. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has paid the filing fee and this matter is set for a scheduling conference on May 18, 2023; however, no Defendant has yet appeared. (Doc. 3).

21 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for electronic filing. (Doc. 7).1 Under the Court’s Local Rules, pro se parties are required to “file and serve paper documents” and “may not utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” Local Rule 133(b)(2) (emphasis omitted). Any request for an exception to this rule must be submitted as a stipulation between the parties or a “written motion setting out an explanation of reasons for the exception.” Local Rule 133(b)(3).

1 It appears Plaintiff has improperly used a Central District form to request permission for electronic filing within the Eastern District of California. (Doc. 7).

1 It is within the Court’s discretion to grant or deny such a request. Reddy v. Precyse | Solutions LLC, No. 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB, 2013 WL 2603413, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 11, | 2013). Here, Plaintiff's filing contains no explanation or justification for access to the electronic | filing system. (Doc. 7). Upon review of the pleadings in this action and Plaintiff’s motion, the | Court finds that this action does not warrant an exception to the Local Rule.

6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Plaintiff’s motion for electronic filing (Doc. 7) | is DENIED.

8 | Ir Is SO ORDERED. ° Dated: _ April 4, 2023 | Word bo 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE