Gipson v. Office of Appellate Operations

S.D. Georgia

Gipson v. Office of Appellate Operations

DecidedMarch 20, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-00016

StatusUnknown

This text of Gipson v. Office of Appellate Operations (Gipson v. Office of Appellate Operations) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gipson v. Office of Appellate Operations, (S.D. Ga. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

SHA’LACE REANE’ NICOLE GIPSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 123-016 ) OFFICE OF APPELLATE OPERATIONS, ) ) Defendant. ) _________

O R D E R _________

Plaintiff requests a ninety-day extension to review documents and file her brief. However, Defendant has not yet filed an answer or the administrative record, so there is not yet a deadline for Plaintiff to file her brief. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request. (Doc. no. 5-1.) Should she find it necessary, Plaintiff may move for an extension after Defendant has responded to the complaint. Plaintiff also requests electronic access to filings in this case. Plaintiff may access public filings through www.pacer.gov and may otherwise request digital copies of Defendant’s filings directly from Defendant. However, the Court itself will not provide Plaintiff with electronic access to filings in this case. See Administrative Procedures for Filing, Signing and Verifying Pleadings and Papers by Electronic Means in Civil and Criminal Cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to file electronically, it is the Southern District of Georgia’s policy not to allow pro se litigants, even those proceeding in forma pauperis, to utilize electronic filing. Blochowicz v. Wilkie, No. CV 120-111, 2020 WL 5028224, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 25, 2020). The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request. (Doc. no. 5-2.) Last, Plaintiff failed to include with her motion a certificate stating the date a true and correct copy of the motion was mailed to Defendant’s counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5; Loc. R. 5.1. Future motions that do not comply with Local Rule 5.1 may be summarily denied. See Layfield v. Bill Heard Chevrolet Co., 607 F.2d 1097, 1099 (5th Cir. 1979)! (holding that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in summary denial of a motion). SO ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2023, at Augusta, Georgia.

BRIAN K. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

SHA’LACE REANE’ NICOLE GIPSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV 123-016 ) OFFICE OF APPELLATE OPERATIONS, ) ) Defendant. ) _________

O R D E R _________

Plaintiff requests a ninety-day extension to review documents and file her brief. However, Defendant has not yet filed an answer or the administrative record, so there is not yet a deadline for Plaintiff to file her brief. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request. (Doc. no. 5-1.) Should she find it necessary, Plaintiff may move for an extension after Defendant has responded to the complaint. Plaintiff also requests electronic access to filings in this case. Plaintiff may access public filings through www.pacer.gov and may otherwise request digital copies of Defendant’s filings directly from Defendant. However, the Court itself will not provide Plaintiff with electronic access to filings in this case. See Administrative Procedures for Filing, Signing and Verifying Pleadings and Papers by Electronic Means in Civil and Criminal Cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to file electronically, it is the Southern District of Georgia’s policy not to allow pro se litigants, even those proceeding in forma pauperis, to utilize electronic filing. Blochowicz v. Wilkie, No. CV 120-111, 2020 WL 5028224, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 25, 2020). The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request. (Doc. no. 5-2.) Last, Plaintiff failed to include with her motion a certificate stating the date a true and correct copy of the motion was mailed to Defendant’s counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5; Loc. R. 5.1. Future motions that do not comply with Local Rule 5.1 may be summarily denied. See Layfield v. Bill Heard Chevrolet Co., 607 F.2d 1097, 1099 (5th Cir. 1979)! (holding that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in summary denial of a motion). SO ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2023, at Augusta, Georgia.

BRIAN K. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gipson v. Office of Appellate Operations, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gipson-v-office-of-appellate-operations-gasd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack