1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALBERTO FERNANDO MANFREDI, et Case No. 2:25-cv-01294-DJC-CSK al., 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION Plaintiffs, FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 v. (ECF No. 43) 14 LAKELAND VILLAGE OWNERS 15 ASSOCIATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Alberto Fernando Manfredi and Melissa 19 Leigh Manfredi’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 27, 2025 Order 20 denying Plaintiffs’ motion for e-filing access.1 (ECF No. 43.) For the reasons stated 21 below, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 22 A court may properly reconsider its decision if it (1) is presented with newly 23 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 24 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. Smith v. Clark Cnty. 25 Sch. Dist.,

(9th Cir. 2013). The choice to reconsider an order is left to 26 the discretion of the court. See

“A party seeking reconsideration must set forth facts 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to

, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse a prior decision.” 2 Brookins v. Hernandez,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020); see also E.D. 3 Cal. Local Rule 230(j) (requiring a party seeking reconsideration to show “what new or 4 different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 5 shown upon such prior motion, or what grounds exist for the motion”). Plaintiffs argue the 6 Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for access to the court’s CM/ECF filing system 7 imposes an unreasonable burden on Plaintiff Alberto Manfredi as a disabled veteran and 8 creates a serious impediment to their effective access to justice. ECF No. 43 at 2. 9 Plaintiffs further argue denial of access to the court’s CM/ECF filing system constitutes a 10 denial of reasonable accommodations pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act 11 and due process and creates a procedural disadvantage compared to defense counsel’s 12 access to e-filing access.

. Plaintiffs further argue denying e-filing access to 13 Plaintiff Melissa Manfredi compounds the burden on Plaintiff Alberto Manfredi by forcing 14 Plaintiff Melissa Manfredi to the same demanding manual filing processes.

. 15 Finally, Plaintiffs argue granting access to the court’s CM/ECF filing system would 16 promote judicial efficiency and fulfill the court’s “duty” to ensure “proper” application of 17 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s local rules to pro se parties.

18 “Any person appearing pro se may not utilize electronic filing except with the 19 permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 133(b)(2); 20 see also E.D. Cal. Local Rule 183(c) (“Pro se parties are exempted from the requirement 21 of filing documents electronically. Pro se parties must file documents conventionally, and 22 any person appearing pro se may use electronic filing only with the permission of the 23 assigned Judge.”). The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a proper basis 24 to reconsider its prior order denying Plaintiffs permission to electronically file documents. 25 Plaintiffs present no new or different facts or circumstances “of a strongly convincing 26 nature” that did not exist when Plaintiffs filed their initial motion for e-filing access. See 27 Brookins,

at *1. Nor have Plaintiffs met the clear error, manifest 28 injustice, or intervening change in the law standards. See Smith,

. In 1 addition, Plaintiffs have demonstrated their ability to file documents without electronic 2 || access. See Docket. The Court does not find Plaintiffs have provided a basis to warrant 3 || an exception to the electronic filing rules. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration 4 | is denied. 5 As previously stated in the Court’s August 25, 2025 Order, Plaintiff Alberto 6 | Manfredi was granted electronic service of documents. 8/25/2025 Order. Electronic 7 | service of documents was not provided to Plaintiff Melissa Manfredi because she did not 8 || provide her email address. If Plaintiff Melissa Manfredi requests electronic service of 9 | documents, she may file a request with the Clerk of Court to receive service of 10 || documents at her email address. If Plaintiff Melissa Manfredi files such a request, the 11 | Clerk is directed to configure Plaintiff Melissa Manfredi’s account so that she will receive 12 || immediate email notifications when documents are filed in the case. In doing so, Plaintiff 13 | Melissa Manfredi consents to receive service of documents electronically and will waive 14 | the right to receive service by first class mail under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 | 5(b)(2)(D). 16 ORDER 17 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that: 18 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 43) is DENIED; and 19 2. Plaintiff Melissa Manfredi may submit a request to the Clerk of Court to 20 allow for electronic service by email, as instructed above. 21 22 | Dated: December 1,

S \U 23 CHI SOO KIM 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 || 4, manf1294.25 26 27 28