Williams v. Capital One, N.A.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PRINCE PAUL RAYMOND WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00980-KES-EPG Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE (E-FILE) v. DOCUMENTS CAPITAL ONE, N.A., et al., (ECF No. 8) Defendants.

Plaintiff Prince Paul Raymond Williams (“Plaintiff”) proceeds pro se in this civil action filed on August 7, 2025. Before the Court is his motion to electronically file (e-file) documents in this case. (ECF No. 8). For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the motion. Plaintiff has filed four cases so far this month: 1:25-cv-957-JLT-SAB; 1:25-cv-973-KES- HBK; 1:25-cv-980-KES-EPG (his instant case); and 1:25-cv-981-JLT-EPG. Plaintiff’s filings in his cases have been voluminous. In this case, he has filed a 40-page complaint (including the civil cover sheet) (ECF No. 1) (emphasis added), a motion for a temporary restraining order, and a motion to e-file documents. In his other case before the undersigned, 1:25-cv-981-JLT-EPG, he has filed a 60-page complaint (including the civil cover sheet) (ECF No. 1) (emphasis added), a motion for a temporary restraining order, and his motion to e-file documents. On August 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed an IFP application, which states he worked until July 17, 2025, and was paid approximately $940. (ECF No. 2, p.1). The Court directed Plaintiff to submit the long form in forma pauperis (IFP) application to better understand his finances. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff states that he “is unhoused and without regular access to copying or mailing facilities. He lacks the means to personally attend the Fresno courthouse personally to file every subsequent paper or receive timely [notice].” (ECF No. 8, p. 2). Further, Plaintiff alleges he “lacks the financial resources to pay copying, postage, or travel costs necessary to file paper documents in person or by mail for every submission.” (Id. p. 3) (emphasis added). Accordingly, he asks that he be granted leave to e-file all documents. III. ANALYSIS 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 via a motion. Local Rule 133(b)(3). And it is within the Court’s discretion to grant or deny such a request. Reddy v. Precyse Solutions LLC, 2013 WL 2603413, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2013). After considering Plaintiff’s motion and the above legal standards, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to grant Plaintiff permission to e-file. First, Plaintiff’s voluminous filings in four cases this month show that he can use the ordinary paper method for filing documents and is not without regular access to copying or mailing facilities. Moreover, information in his IFP application demonstrates that he has the financial resources necessary to file paper documents. Second, Plaintiff’s motion seeks permission to e-file in part to allow him to file voluminous documents with the Court. Plaintiff’s filings in this and other cases pending in this Court show that Plaintiff frequently files voluminous pleadings. The Court is concerned that permitting electronic filing may encourage Plaintiff to file unnecessarily voluminous filings, taxing the limited resources of the Court. \\\ \\\ Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to e-file documents is denied. (ECF No. 8). ; IT IS SO ORDERED.

6] Dated: _ August 22, 2025 [Je hey — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE