(PS) Lucero v. Oak Run Elementary School District

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02854
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOLORES LUCERO, Case No. 2:24-CV-02854-DC-SCR 12 13 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS 14 v. 15 16 OAK RUN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 17 DISTRICT, et al., 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 Presently before the Court are two motions for permission to e-file documents, filed by 22 Plaintiff Dolores Lucero, who proceeds without the assistance of counsel.1 ECF Nos. 18 & 26. 23 Plaintiff’s first motion states that allowing e-filing will promote judicial efficiency and states she 24 has the ability to utilize the CM/ECF system. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff’s second motion, filed less 25 than one month after the first, states that Plaintiff has been unable to timely respond to some of 26 Defendants’ filings, although no specific examples are given. ECF No. 26. Defendants have not 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 28 and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 opposed the motions. 2 The Court observes that Plaintiff has experienced no apparent difficulty filing. Since 3 January 6, 2025, Plaintiff has made more than twelve filings. In the one-week span between 4 January 15, 2025, and January 22, 2025, the parties together filed 19 documents. See ECF Nos. 5 25-43. The parties should be aware of the extremely heavy caseload in this District. See Whately 6 v. Cisneros, 2023 WL 3646725 (E.D. Cal. 2023) (collecting cases observing that the District has 7 “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation”). The filing of duplicative motions seeking the same 8 relief, oppositions to routine extensions of time, and failing to comply with the Local Rules which 9 then necessitates requests for additional briefing or overlength briefs, puts a strain on an already 10 burdened judiciary and takes time away from the Court focusing on the merits of this and other 11 cases. 12 Two motions to dismiss are set for hearing on February 27, 2025. ECF No. 29. The 13 parties should refrain from filing further motions prior to that date unless such filing seeks 14 emergency relief. To maintain efficient management of the Court’s docket, the Court will not 15 consider further non-emergent motions until after the hearing on February 27, 2025. 16 The Local Rules are clear that “any person appearing pro se may not utilize electronic 17 filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” See Local Rule 18 133(b)(2). Plaintiff’s motion for electronic case filing does not provide good cause for deviance 19 from this Local Rule. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to e-file is denied with respect to utilizing the 20 CM/ECF system to file documents. Plaintiff will continue to file paper documents with the Court 21 through conventional means. 22 However, the Court is amenable to allowing Plaintiff to receive service of documents by 23 electronic means. Should she wish to take advantage of this, Plaintiff may file a request with the 24 Clerk of Court to receive service of documents at her email address. If Plaintiff files such a 25 request, the Clerk is directed to configure Plaintiff’s account so that she will receive immediate 26 email notifications when documents are filed in the case. In doing so, Plaintiff will consent to 27 receive service of documents electronically and will waive the right to receive service by first 28 class mail under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(D). 1 ORDER 2 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 3 1. Plaintiff's motions for permission to e-file documents (EFC Nos. 18 & 26) are 4 DENIED; and 5 2. Plaintiff may submit a request to the Clerk of Court to allow for electronic service by 6 email, as instructed above. 7 | Dated: January 23, 2025 Kink 9 SEAN C. RIORDAN 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28