Marsh v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TERRANCE MARSH, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01304-CDB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR E-FILING PRIVILEGES 13 v. (Doc. 10) FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, 15 Defendant.

17 Pending before the Court is the motion of pro se Plaintiffs Terrance Marsh and Gesele Marsh (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) for permission to participate in electronic case filing, filed on December 13, 2024. (Doc. 10). Plaintiffs request permission to use the court’s electronic filing system because “[f]iling by online services makes it easier and fast and sufficient to get documents to courts in a timely manner and saves Plaintiffs monetarily for filing in court in- person and by mail.” (Id. at 1). In their filing, Plaintiffs also express their view that “[t]his case is a State case which derives from an Estoppel due to broken contract and therefore should stay as a State status and heard in the State court.” (Id. at 1-2).

25 Generally, “self-represented litigants are not permitted to e-file in this district.” Miller v. Sacramento City Unified School District, No. 2:21-cv-0757-JAM-CKD PS, 2021 WL 3539733, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2021); see Local Rule 133(b)(2) (“Any person appearing pro se may not utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate || Judge.”). “[E]-filing is a privilege which in some circumstances may be extended to self- || represented parties. If the case proceeds beyond the pleadings stage and plaintiff has not abused || the filing procedures, the court will consider a further motion for e-filing privileges.” Miller, |) 2021 WL 3539733 at *3.

5 Here, there is a pending motion to dismiss (Doc. 7). Because “it is not clear whether this || case will proceed beyond the pleadings stage, the [C]ourt does not find good cause to depart || from the default rule in this district not to permit self-represented litigants to e-file.” Miller v. || Sacramento City Unified School District, No. 2:21-cv-O757-JAM-CKD PS, 2021 WL 3883916, 9 *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2021) Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion will be denied. The Court assures || Plaintiffs that although they do not have access to electronically view the filings in the case, || paper copies of all court orders (including minute orders) are mailed to them at the time of their || issuance.

13 Conclusion and Order 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for electronic filing || privileges (Doc. 10) is DENIED.

16 |! TT IS SO ORDERED. " DR ~ Dated: _ December 19, 2024 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE