Hans v. Dept. of State Hospitals, Coalinga

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 TANVEER HANS, Case No. 24-cv-01214-JLT-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PARTICIPATE IN ELECTRONIC 13 v. FILING

14 DEPT. OF STATE HOSPITALS, (ECF No. 2) COALINGA, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Tanveer Hans (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and having paid the filing fee, 18 initiated this action on October 8, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff concurrently filed a motion to 19 participate in electronic filing. (ECF No. 2.) 20 Pursuant to the Local Rules, a pro se party must file and serve paper documents. L.R. 21 133(a). Persons appearing pro se are specifically prohibited from utilizing electronic filing 22 “except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” L.R. 133(b)(2). A pro 23 se party may request an exception to the paper filing requirement from the Court by filing a 24 stipulation of the parties, or “if a stipulation cannot be had, [a] written motion[] setting out an 25 explanation of reasons for the exception.” L.R. 133(b)(3). A motion requesting electronic filing 26 by a person appearing pro se must set out an explanation of reasons for the exception. L.R. 27 133(b)(3). It is within the Court's discretion to grant or deny such a request. Reddy v. Precyse Solutions LLC, 1:12–CV–2061 AWI SAB, 2013 WL 2603413, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2013). 1 Plaintiff’s motion provides that Plaintiff consents to the Court and opposing counsel 2 | using his email address; acknowledges he will no longer receive hard copies of filings; states his 3 | understanding that he “must complete the Court’s required training class on electronic filing for 4 | pro se litigants”; and certifies he can comply with various equipment, internet, and software 5 | requirements. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff does not otherwise set out an explanation of reasons for an 6 | exception to the paper filing requirement. L.R. 133(b)(3). Upon review of the pleadings in this 7 | action and the instant request, the Court does not find that Plaintiff's request currently warrants 8 | an exception to Local Rule 133(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for permission to use the 9 | electronic case filing system shall be denied without prejudice. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to participate in 11 | electronic filing (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without prejudice. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 14 | Dated: _ October 9, 2024

Is UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28