Seifert v. Pritchard

Opinion

ALEXANDRA SEIFERT, Case No. 1:24-cv-01097-CDB Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA v. PAUPERIS

KENNETH GEORGE PRITCHARD, et al., (Doc. 2)

Defendants. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC FILING (Doc. 3)

Plaintiff Alexandra Seifert (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action on September 16, 2024. (Doc. 1). Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prepaying fees or costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). The Court finds Plaintiff has made the showing required by § 1915, and the request to proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted. As to the status of the complaint, Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of pro se complaint where the plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis to determine whether it is legally sufficient under the applicable pleading standards. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, if the Court determines that the complaint is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies in the complaint can be cured by amendment. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course. If appropriate after the case has been screened, the Clerk of the Court will provide Plaintiff with the requisite forms and instructions to request the assistance of the United States Marshal in serving Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Motion for Electronic Filing Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for electronic filing. (Doc. 3). Under the Court’s Local Rules, pro se parties are required to “file and serve paper documents” and “may not utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” Local Rule 133(b)(2) (emphasis omitted). Any request for an exception to this rule must be submitted as a stipulation between the parties or a “written motion setting out an explanation of reasons for the exception.” Local Rule 133(b)(3). It is within the Court’s discretion to grant or deny such a request. Reddy v. Precyse Solutions LLC, No. 1:12-cv-02061-AWI-SAB, 2013 WL 2603413, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2013). Here, Plaintiff’s filing contains no explanation or justification for access to the electronic filing system. (Doc. 3). Upon review of the pleadings in this action and Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that this action does not warrant an exception to the Local Rule. [Remainder of this page intentionally left blank.] Conclusion and Order Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), for good cause appearing, is GRANTED and 2. Plaintiffs motion for electronic filing (Doc. 3) is DENIED. © | Ir IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ September 27, 2024 | hwrnrD Pr UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE