Brar v. State of California

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 6, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00136
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TANBEER SINGH BRAR, Case No. 1:25-cv-00136-JLT-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS

14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, (Doc. 2)

15 Defendant. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR E-FILING PRIVILEGES 16 (Doc. 3) 17 18 Plaintiff Tanbeer Singh Brar (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this action with the 19 filing of a complaint on February 3, 2025. (Doc. 1). 20 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 21 Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prepaying fees or costs 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). The Court finds Plaintiff has made the showing required 23 by § 1915, and the request to proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted. 24 As to the status of the complaint, Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of pro se complaint where the plaintiff 26 proceeds in forma pauperis to determine whether it is legally sufficient under the applicable 27 pleading standards. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, if the Court 28 1 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of § 1915 outlines how prisoners can file proceedings in 3 forma pauperis, § 1915(e) “applies to all in forma pauperis [proceedings], not just those filed by 4 prisoners.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). See Cato v. United States, 70 5 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma pauperis 6 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998) 7 (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). 8 Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course. If appropriate after the case has been 9 screened, the Clerk of the Court will provide Plaintiff with the requisite forms and instructions to 10 request the assistance of the United States Marshal in serving Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule 11 of Civil Procedure 4. 12 Motion for Electronic Filing 13 Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for electronic filing privileges. (Doc. 14 3). 15 Generally, “self-represented litigants are not permitted to e-file in this district.” Miller v. 16 Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., No. 2:21-cv-0757-JAM-CKD PS, 2021 WL 3539733, at *3 17 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2021). Under the Court’s Local Rules, pro se parties are required to “file and 18 serve paper documents” and “may not utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the 19 assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 133(b)(2) (emphasis omitted). “[E]- 20 filing is a privilege which in some circumstances may be extended to self-represented parties. If 21 the case proceeds beyond the pleadings stage and plaintiff has not abused the filing procedures, 22 the court will consider a further motion for e-filing privileges.” Miller, 2021 WL 3539733 at *3. 23 Any request for an exception to this rule must be submitted as a stipulation between the parties or 24 a “written motion setting out an explanation of reasons for the exception.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 25 133(b)(3). It is within the Court’s discretion to grant or deny such a request. Reddy v. Precyse 26 Solutions LLC, No. 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB, 2013 WL 2603413, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2013). 27 Here, Plaintiff’s filing contains no explanation or justification for access to the electronic 28 1 || the pleadings stage as the complaint is due to be screened as noted supra. Because “it is not clear 2 || whether this case will proceed beyond the pleadings stage, the [C]ourt does not find good cause to 3 || depart from the default rule in this district not to permit self-represented litigants to e-file.” Miller 4 || v. Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., No. 2:21-cv-0757-JAM-CKD PS, 2021 WL 3883916, at *2 5 || (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2021). Thus, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. The Court assures Plaintiff 6 || that although he does not have access to electronically view the filings in the case, paper copies of 7 || all court orders (including minute orders) are mailed to him at the time of their issuance. 8 Conclusion and Order 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED; and 11 2. Plaintiff’s motion for electronic filing privileges (Doc. 3) is DENIED. 12 ll TT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ) Bo Dated: _ February 6, 2025 | Vv VL 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28