(PS) Lucero v. Oak Run Elementary School District

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DOLORES LUCERO, Case No. 2:24-CV-02854-DC-SCR 13 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS v. OAK RUN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

21 Presently before the Court are two motions for permission to e-file documents, filed by Plaintiff Dolores Lucero, who proceeds without the assistance of counsel.1 ECF Nos. 18 & 26.

23 Plaintiff’s first motion states that allowing e-filing will promote judicial efficiency and states she has the ability to utilize the CM/ECF system. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff’s second motion, filed less than one month after the first, states that Plaintiff has been unable to timely respond to some of Defendants’ filings, although no specific examples are given. ECF No. 26. Defendants have not This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(21).

1 opposed the motions.

2 The Court observes that Plaintiff has experienced no apparent difficulty filing. Since January 6, 2025, Plaintiff has made more than twelve filings. In the one-week span between January 15, 2025, and January 22, 2025, the parties together filed 19 documents. See ECF Nos. 25-43. The parties should be aware of the extremely heavy caseload in this District. See Whately v. Cisneros, 2023 WL 3646725 (E.D. Cal. 2023) (collecting cases observing that the District has “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation”). The filing of duplicative motions seeking the same relief, oppositions to routine extensions of time, and failing to comply with the Local Rules which then necessitates requests for additional briefing or overlength briefs, puts a strain on an already burdened judiciary and takes time away from the Court focusing on the merits of this and other cases.

12 Two motions to dismiss are set for hearing on February 27, 2025. ECF No. 29. The parties should refrain from filing further motions prior to that date unless such filing seeks emergency relief. To maintain efficient management of the Court’s docket, the Court will not consider further non-emergent motions until after the hearing on February 27, 2025.

16 The Local Rules are clear that “any person appearing pro se may not utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” See Local Rule 133(b)(2). Plaintiff’s motion for electronic case filing does not provide good cause for deviance from this Local Rule. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to e-file is denied with respect to utilizing the CM/ECF system to file documents. Plaintiff will continue to file paper documents with the Court through conventional means.

22 However, the Court is amenable to allowing Plaintiff to receive service of documents by electronic means. Should she wish to take advantage of this, Plaintiff may file a request with the Clerk of Court to receive service of documents at her email address. If Plaintiff files such a request, the Clerk is directed to configure Plaintiff’s account so that she will receive immediate email notifications when documents are filed in the case. In doing so, Plaintiff will consent to receive service of documents electronically and will waive the right to receive service by first class mail under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(D).

1 ORDER 2 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 3 1. Plaintiff's motions for permission to e-file documents (EFC Nos. 18 & 26) are 4 DENIED; and 5 2. Plaintiff may submit a request to the Clerk of Court to allow for electronic service by 6 email, as instructed above.

7 | Dated: January 23, 2025 Kink SEAN C. RIORDAN 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE