Anthony v. Segura

District Court, S.D. California·Decided April 4, 2024·No. 3:24-cv-00458·Unknown

Opinion

MARIAN ANTHONY, Case No. 24-cv-0458-BAS-SBC

Plaintiff, ORDER: v. 1. TERMINATING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO Defendant. DISMISS (ECF No. 7); AND

2. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY (ECF No. 10) Motion to Dismiss. Presently before the Court are two items. First, Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on various grounds, including the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and Younger abstention. (ECF No. 7.) The next day, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, exhausting his one opportunity to amend his pleading without the Court’s permission. (ECF No. 8.) A revised pleading replaces “the original complaint and renders it without legal effect.” Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Hence, the Court will terminate as moot Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and Defendant can reassert his challenges to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Motion to File Electronically. Second, Plaintiff, who is self-represented, moves for permission to file electronically. (ECF No. 10.) This motion is Plaintiff's second request. The Court rejected Plaintiff's first request because he did not comply with Section 2.b of Court’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual. (ECF No. 6.) The Court also provided him a copy of the referenced manual. (/d.) Under Section 2.b, a self-represented party “seeking leave to electronically file documents must file a motion and demonstrate the means to do so properly by stating their equipment and software capabilities in addition to agreeing to follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.” Plaintiff now renews his request, but he still does not address the requirements under Section 2.b. Consequently, the Court will deny his request. Accordingly, the Court TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7). The Court also DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Electronically (ECF No. 10). DATED: April 3, 2024 ( itl A (Liphan 6 ig United States District Judge ~_9.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Anthony v. Segura, (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Anthony v. Segura (Anthony v. Segura) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)