Mascorro v. The City of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELOY MASCORRO, Case No.: 21cv1427-LL-AGS

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO FILE TWO NEW COMPLAINTS BY EMAIL 14 THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO; PARK

RANGER JOHN DOE; SAN DIEGO 15 [ECF No. 26] POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS 1-

16 4; THE SAN DIEGO FIRE

DEPARTMENT; EMTS 1-3, 17 Defendants. 18 19

20 21 On March 21, 2021, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an 22 “Emergency Motion to File Two New Complaints by Email.” ECF No. 26. Plaintiff states, 23 “I am requesting, and have requested in past motions, to be allowed to file a new complaint 24 by email due to not having a government ID to enter the Court and not having enough 25 money to print and mail new complaints.” Plaintiff explains that these two complaints are 26 “new,” and are not amendments to any of his currently pending complaints. Plaintiff has 27 already been denied permission to access the court without any government identification. 28 Additionally, within the last seven months Plaintiff has managed to file the complaint in 1 ||the instant case, as well as two other complaints (see 21cv1725 and 21cv2012), without 2 || being granted the special access he seeks here. Finally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court is 3 permitted to waive litigation expenses beyond the filing the fees imposed by the Court. 4 || See Hadsell v. Comm’r Internal Revenue Service, 107 F.3d 750, 752 (9th Cir. 1997); Dixon 5 Yist, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 6 || 1989) (per curiam). Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion [ECF No. 26] is DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: March 23, 2022 NO 9 DE 10 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28