Jeremy Jones v. D. Goree, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY JONES, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01119-JLT-SKO (PC) 12 ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 13 Plaintiff, SHOW CAUSE

14 v. (Doc. 44) 15 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 16 D. GOREE, et al., MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO OPPOSE 17 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Defendants.

18 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 19 REQUEST FOR E-FILING PRIVILEGES

20 (Doc. 47)

21 Plaintiff Jeremy Jones is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 22 action. This action proceeds on the following claims: (1) Eighth Amendment conditions of 23 confinement claims against Defendants Jimenez and Goree (Claims 1 & 5); (2) Fourteenth 24 Amendment due process claims against Defendants Goree, Brown, Thomas, Cortez, and Valdez 25 (Claim 2); (3) First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Jimenez and Brown (Claim 26 3); and (4) Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against 27 1 Defendants Jackson, Castro, Igbinosa, Ahlmeyer, Grewal, Ramos, Pena, Mejia, Montes, Navarro, 2 Serda, Stovall, and Jane or John Doe (Claim 4). (See Doc. 24.) 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 On December 29, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended 5 complaint. (Doc. 40.) After Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 6 Defendants’ pending motion, on January 27, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause 7 (OSC) Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Plaintiff’s Failure to Oppose Defendants’ 8 Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 44.) Plaintiff was directed to respond within 14 days. (Id. at 2-3.) 9 On February 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Notice, Request for [Extension] of 10 Time Due to Extreme Circumstances and Special Request to E-File All Future Filings By 11 Plaintiff” (Doc. 47) and a “Notice to the Court”1 (Doc. 48). 12 II. DISCUSSION 13 Plaintiff states that following service “of the defendants in this case, there’s been a blaton 14 [sic] retaliation by this institution by denial of access to the court by refusing to mail out the 15 Plaintiff’s legal mail after it has been processed in accordance with ‘the Mailbox Rule.’” (Doc. 16 47.) Plaintiff contends those actions have been “deliberate and intentional” and have led to the 17 dismissal of another of his pending cases.2 (Id. at 1-2.) As a result of those “extreme 18 circumstances,” Plaintiff states he “had to take extreme measures to file this notice and motion 19 this court of ran extension of time.” (Id. at 2.) For those same reasons, Plaintiff moves “to have all 20 future filings, E-filed through the law library staff, that its kept confidential to prevent further 21 1 The notice includes a caption identifying the plaintiff as “Nazario Jaquez,” although it bears this action’s 22 case number. The notice advises that “due to the extreme circumstances of this institution refusing to give my neighbor access to the court through the mail process, I am compelled to make this attempt to access 23 the court on his behalf, by using my name to process this motion (legal mail) to keep it from going missing 24 again.” (Doc. 48.) The notice was signed by Nazario Jaquez on February 5, 2026. (Id.)

25 2 Plaintiff identifies the case as “Jones v. Drayton Case No. 2:21-cv-06020 ODW.” (Doc. 48 at 2.) A review of the docket for Jones v. Drayton, et al., case number 2:21-cv-06020-ODW-AYP, filed in the 26 United States District Court for the Central District of California, reveals the action was dismissed on January 26, 2026, for Plaintiff’s “unreasonable failure to prosecute and his failure to comply with the 27 October Order by the extended deadline to do so.” (See Docket Entry No. 64.) Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2012) (court may take judicial notice of “documents on file in federal or state courts”). 1 reprisals … and so there’s no blow back on library staff.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he “has proof of” 2 these allegations, but “does not have access to the law library and will provide copies in his future 3 filings.” (Id. at 1.) 4 Plaintiff Will Be Granted an Extension of Time 5 Plaintiff will be granted an extension of 21 days within which to respond to Defendants’ 6 pending motion to dismiss. 7 Plaintiff Is Not Entitled to E-Filing Privileges 8 Local Rule 133(b)(2) provides that a “person appearing pro se may not utilize electronic 9 filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” Generally, “self- 10 represented litigants are not permitted to e-file in this district.” Miller v. Sacramento City Unified 11 School District, No. 2:21-cv-0757-JAM-CKD PS, 2021 WL 3539733, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 12 2021). 13 Here, the Court does not find good cause to except Plaintiff from the requirement that he 14 file and serve paper documents. See Local Rule 133(a) (“Pro se parties shall file and serve paper 15 documents as provided in these Rules”). Although unclear, but assuming Plaintiff’s request is 16 based on an assertion that he prepared and submitted for mailing a previous request for an 17 extension of time that was not mailed to the Court, a single instance of an outgoing mail 18 violation3 does not warrant access to e-filing. See, e.g., Calhoun v. Dela Cruz, No. 2:20-cv-02209 19 DAD DB P, 2023 WL 2774700, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2023) (denying prisoner’s motion to 20 order the law librarian to assist plaintiff to file electronically); see also Riaz v. Henry, No. 1:21- 21 cv-00911-KES-SKO, 2025 WL 2174190, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2025) (denying motion for e- 22 filing access by pro se plaintiff and noting “[l]engthy filings, efficiency, and cost effectiveness do 23 not warrant an exception”); Driver v. Kern County Superior Court, No. 2:20-cv-1665 TLN KJN 24

25 3 A single mistake or occasional mishandling of mail, legal or nonlegal, does not state a claim under 26 section 1983. Reynolds v. Potts, 8 F.3d 29 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted) (unpublished); see Crofton v. Roe, 170 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 1999) (emphasizing that a temporary delay or isolated incident of delay 27 of mail does not violate a prisoner’s First Amendment rights). Similarly, a claim for negligent mishandling or misdirection of mail is also not actionable under section 1983. Rhinehart v. Gomez, 205 F.3d 1352 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330-32 (1986)). 1 P, 2022 WL 17629299, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2022) (denying prisoner’s request to use e-filing 2 because “the CDCR canteen will not stock postage and/or mailing envelopes” because record 3 establishes multiple filings submitted during the relevant period undermine plaintiff’s assertion). 4 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 5 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 6 1. The OSC issued January 27, 2026 (Doc. 44) is DISCHARGED; 7 2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (Doc. 47) within which to file an opposition 8 to Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff SHALL file any opposition 9 within 21 days of the date of service of this Order; and 10 3. Plaintiff’s “Special Request to E-File” (Doc. 47) is DENIED. 11 WARNING: A failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation 12 that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for a failure to comply with court orders 13 and failure to prosecute. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

16 Dated: February 12, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27