Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00649/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00649-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAUREN LAMONTÉ QUALLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-CV-00649-LJO-SMS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

REQUEST TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY

(Doc. 43)

Plaintiff Lauren Lamonté Qualls, proceeding pro se, requests permission to file court 

documents using the Court's electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). Plaintiff seeks economy of 

funds and time.

"Pro se parties are exempted from the requirement of filing documents electronically. Pro se 

parties must file documents conventionally, and any person appearing pro se may use electronic 

filing only with the permission of the assigned judge." Local R. 183(c). "The local rules exempt pro 

se parties from electronic filing for good reason." Holland v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., 2010 WL 

5233013 at *1 (E.D. Cal. December 16, 2010) (No. 2:10-cv-2110-GEB-CMK). The Court's decision 

to limit pro se litigants to filing in paper reflects the logistical problems of ensuring that the litigant 

has both the necessary skills and technically appropriate equipment and software to meet the 

system's requirements. Rojas-Vega v. U.S. Citizenship Immigration Service, 2013 WL 2417937 at 

*3 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2013) (No. 13-cv-172-LAB). The Southern District denied Rojas-Vega's

request to file electronically since his description of his equipment and software was inadequate to 

allow the Court to determine whether the system was compatible with CM/ECF. Id. Cf., Meyer v. 

Khoury, 2012 WL 3877646 at *5 (N.D. Cal. September 6, 2012) (No. C 12-00734 WHA)

(permitting Meyer to return to paper filing after she found electronic filing too difficult and 

expensive for a pro se litigant). Plaintiff in this case appears not to have contemplated the question 

of the need for compatible hardware and software.

Case 1:13-cv-00649-DLC-SMS Document 45 Filed 09/29/14 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In addition to the practical requirements of sufficient technical skills and compatible 

equipment, the policy of requiring pro se litigants to file in paper is "to ensure that pro se documents 

are properly filed." Hale v. Vacaville Housing Auth., 2009 WL 1381761 at *3 (E.D.Cal. May 13, 

2009). The Court "require[s] pro se litigants to submit documents in paper form so that the Clerk's 

office can insure that the documents are properly filed." Baker v. IC System, Inc., 2008 WL 

4186166 at *1 (D.Ariz. September 9, 2008) (No. CV-08-8091-PCT-DGC). For example, a pro se

litigant may be unaware of the impropriety of posting informal letters to the docket. Omoregie v. 

Boardwalk Auto Center, Inc., 2008 WL 4792643 at *2 (N.D.Cal. October 31, 2008) (No. C 07-3884 

PJH). In the course of filing and scanning the paper documents submitted by pro se litigants, 

personnel in the Clerk's office review the document's procedural sufficiency and propriety. Such 

screening is essential to the efficient and fair operation of a court with the extraordinary case load 

and limited budgetary resources of the Eastern District of California. The motion here includes no 

indication that Plaintiff is familiar with appropriate practices and procedures for electronic filing, or 

even that he has reviewed the information regarding electronic filing that is set forth on the Court's 

website. The Court is particularly concerned that the Plaintiff appears to perceive a need to file 

evidence since evidence typically is not filed but is simply exchanged with the other parties in the 

process of discovery.

Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's motion for permission to file electronically 

without prejudice to Petitioner's filing a subsequent request addressing the concerns expressed in this 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2014 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00649-DLC-SMS Document 45 Filed 09/29/14 Page 2 of 2