Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00097/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00097-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ammar Dean Halloum, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV 11-97-PHX-RCB(JFM)

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Charles Ryan, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

Currently pending before the court are two motions

simultaneously filed by plaintiff pro se, Ammar Dean Halloum. 

In the first, plaintiff is seeking “to [s]ubrogate [h]is

[e]lectronic [f]iling[,]” Mot. (Doc. 76); and in the second,

he is seeking to “expedite the trial date.” Mot. (Doc. 77) at

1:10-11. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants

the first motion, but denies the second without prejudice to

renew. Background

In January, 2011, while confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Tucson, plaintiff filed this pro se civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as an 

Case 2:11-cv-00097-JJT Document 81 Filed 04/25/13 Page 1 of 9
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 -

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court granted

the plaintiff in forma pauperis status and assessed the

statutory filing fee of $350.00. Ord. (Doc. 5). On April 21,

2011, the plaintiff informed the court that he had been

released from custody. Not. (Doc. 16). 

Pursuant to this court’s January 27, 2011, order,

plaintiff was required to “pay the unpaid balance of the

filing fee within 120 days” of that release date. See Ord.

(Doc. 5) at 8:11. That order also required plaintiff, within

30 days of his release, to “either (1) notify the court that

he intends to pay the balance or (2) show good cause, in

writing, why he cannot.” Id. at 8:12-13. Further, this

court’s order explicitly “[w]arn[ed][,]” among other things,

that “[f]ailure to comply” with the foregoing “may result in

dismissal of this action.” Id. at 8:9 (emphasis in

original); and at 8:13-14.

Despite plaintiff’s failure to comply with any of those

requirements, this lawsuit progressed. And, in April, 2012,

the defendants filed a summary judgment motion. In late May,

2012, the plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary

judgment. During the pendency of those motions, on June 22,

2012, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file and

serve electronically pursuant to this District’s Electronic

Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual

(the ECF Manual), ¶ II.B.3. Plaintiff attached to his motion

the fully completed “PRO SE PARTICIPANT ELECTRONIC CASE FILES

REGISTRATION FORM[.]” Mot. (Doc. 58) at 4-5. The Honorable

United States Magistrate Judge Metcalf granted that motion on

Case 2:11-cv-00097-JJT Document 81 Filed 04/25/13 Page 2 of 9
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

- 3 -

June 27, 2012, “remind[ing]” plaintiff of his “obligation to

‘register as a user with the Clerk’s Office and as a

subscriber to PACER within five . . . days.’” Ord. (Doc. 59)

(quoting ECF Manual at ¶ II.B.3). 

On July 2, 2012, within five days of the Magistrate

Judge’s order, the Clerk of the Court’s records indicate that

plaintiff was issued a login and password, and denoted as

“Registered” with the court’s CM/ECF system. CM/ECF-azd-User

Maintenance Information for Ammar Dean Halloum. A

“Registered User” is “an individual who has been issued a

login and password by the court to electronically file

documents.” ECF Manual at 4, ¶ I(A). Thus, with the issuance

of his login and password, on July 2, 2012, plaintiff Halloum

became a “registered user” within the meaning of the ECF

Manual. Consequently, the docket shows that after that date,

the Clerk’s Office began serving plaintiff electronically. 

On October 12, 2012, this court entered an Order to Show

Cause (“OSC”) directing the plaintiff to pay the statutory

filing fee or show cause why he has not paid the balance of

his filing fee, which was still the full $350.00 (Doc. 73). 

That OSC contained a separate “Warning[,]” notifying the

plaintiff that “[i]f [he] fails to timely comply with th[at]

[OSC], the Court may dismiss this action without further

notice.” Id. at 2:7-9 (citation omitted). Consistent with

his status as a registered ECF user, plaintiff was

electronically served with the OSC. OSC (Doc. 73), Notice of

Electronic Filing (“NEF”) attached thereto at 1. 

When the plaintiff did not respond to the OSC, on

Case 2:11-cv-00097-JJT Document 81 Filed 04/25/13 Page 3 of 9
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

- 4 -

November 28, 2012, this court dismissed the action without

prejudice in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), and denied

the pending summary judgment motions as moot. Ord. (Doc. 74)

at 3:22-4:1, ¶¶ (2)(3). Judgment was entered accordingly

that same date (Doc. 75). Also on that date, plaintiff was

electronically served with the dismissal order and the

judgment. Ord. (Doc. 74), NEF attached thereto at 1; and

Judgment (Doc. 75), NEF attached thereto at 1. At no time

in this case, was there ever a notice of failure of delivery

as to any of the notices of electronic filing (“NEF”)

associated with any of the electronically filed and served

court orders.

Roughly two months later, on January 24, 2013, plaintiff

filed the pending motions. Essentially, plaintiff is

claiming that he has not been able to access the CM/ECF

system and that he did not have notice of the OSC and the

resultant dismissal order. 

Discussion

I. Electronic Filing

Because they are uncertain as to exactly what relief

plaintiff is seeking in his motion “to subrogate his

electronic filing[,]” the defendants acknowledge receipt, but

otherwise do not respond. See Defs.’ Ack. (Doc. 78) at 1:20-

21. As the court construes plaintiff’s motion, he no longer

wants to use electronic filing because he has not been able

to “successfully access the record.” Mot. (Doc. 76) at 1:12.

The record as presently constituted strongly supports

plaintiff’s contention. Although it is not absolutely

Case 2:11-cv-00097-JJT Document 81 Filed 04/25/13 Page 4 of 9
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

- 5 -

certain, evidently plaintiff tried to use the ECF system once,

on July 3, 2012 – one day after becoming a registered ECF

user. The records of the Clerk of the Court reflect that on

that date someone, presumably plaintiff, was active on his ECF

account for 27 seconds. CM/ECF-azd-User Maintenance

Information for Ammar Dean Halloum. Evidently, in that short

time, plaintiff was unable to access the docket in this case. 

Further, clearly he did not electronically file any documents

at that time. 

In fact, since becoming a registered ECF user, plaintiff

has never availed himself of electronic service or filing. He

always submits a hard copy to the Clerk of the Court’s office

for filing and serves the defendants by mail. See, e.g., Mot.

(Doc. 63). Proceeding in that way, rather than using the ECF

system, is consistent with plaintiff not being able to

“successfully access the record.” See Mot. (Doc. 76) at

1:12. Perhaps the defendants were aware of that, because even

after July 2, 2012, the date plaintiff supposedly became a

registered ECF user, they have always served plaintiff by

mail, stating that he “is not a registered participant of the

CM/ECF system.” See. e.g., Mot. (Doc. 65) at 3:6-7. 

In light of the foregoing, the court sees no reason to

compel plaintiff to use the ECF system for filing and service. 

The court therefore GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to “[s]ubrogate

his [e]lectronic [f]iling[.]” See Mot. (Doc. 76) at 1:5-6

(emphasis omitted). This means that plaintiff is no longer

deemed to be a registered user within the meaning of the ECF

Manual. Therefore, in this case, he cannot file and receive

Case 2:11-cv-00097-JJT Document 81 Filed 04/25/13 Page 5 of 9
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 Actually, the dismissal order and judgment both were entered on

November 28, 2012. Ord. (Doc. 74) and Judgment (Doc. 75).

- 6 -

notice electronically. 

II. Trial Date

On January 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to expedite

[the] trial date[,]” claiming that he “does not know the

process when the Court will set the Trail [sic], and has been

waiting for months[.]” Mot. (Doc. 77) at 1:10-13. In

response, the defendants point out that this action “was

dismissed and Judgment was entered on November 29, 2012.”1

Resp. (Doc. 79) at 1:19-20 (citations omitted). Defendants

accurately explain that when the plaintiff failed to respond

to the OSC, the court dismissed this action.

Significantly, however, as the court construes plaintiff’s

reply, he did not learn of either the OSC or the resultant

dismissal order until the filing of defendants’ response on

approximately February 6, 2013 – slightly more than two

months after the dismissal of this action. Now, plaintiff

“wants to bring to the [court’s] attention” the possibility of

a notification “error[.]” Reply (Doc. 80) at 1:25. Plaintiff,

therefore, “requests . . . reinstate[ment] of his case[,]” to

“give him enough time to respond to the fee inquiry, or to pay

it.” Id. at 2:2-3. 

When plaintiff Halloum completed the electronic 

registration form, among other things, he “consent[ed] to

receive notice electronically and waiver of the right to

receive notice by first class mail[.]” See Mot. (Doc. 58) at

5. Similarly, the plaintiff “consent[ed] to electronic

Case 2:11-cv-00097-JJT Document 81 Filed 04/25/13 Page 6 of 9
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

- 7 -

service and waiver of the right to service by personal service

or first class mail . . . except with regard to service of a

summons and complaint.” Id. That form further advised the

plaintiff that “waiver of service and notice by first class

mail applies to notice of the entry of an order or judgment.” 

Id.

Ordinarily, the foregoing, coupled with plaintiff

Halloum’s “acknowledg[ment]” that [he] . . . read and

underst[ood] the information” in the signed registration form,

would readily convince this court that when he became a

registered ECF user, the plaintiff waived his right to notice

and service by any means other than electronically. See Mot.

(Doc. 58) at 5. This case is not typical, however. That is

because at the issuance of his password and login information,

the ECF system allowed plaintiff to log-in and view documents

filed in this case, but it did not allow him to electronically

file any documents. Therefore, it is possible that on July 3,

2012, the first and only time plaintiff’s ECF account shows

any activity, he was trying to e-file the motion for an

extension of time. It also is entirely possible that because

plaintiff could not access his ECF account at that time, he

resorted to providing the court with a hard copy, which was

filed on July 5, 2012. See Mot. (Doc. 63) at 1. 

Plaintiff’s inability to e-file is also in keeping with his

practice of always submitting hard copies of any documents for

filing to the court and of serving defendants via mail. Under

these unique circumstances, the court cannot find that

plaintiff Halloum necessarily had notice of either the OSC or

Case 2:11-cv-00097-JJT Document 81 Filed 04/25/13 Page 7 of 9
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

- 8 -

the dismissal order and entry of judgment thereon. Therefore,

the court hereby VACATES the judgment entered on November 28,

2012 (Doc. 75), as well as the order entered on that same date

(Doc. 74). At the same time, though, because the foregoing

means that the summary judgment motions will, once gain, be

pending, the court hereby DENIES without prejudice to renew

plaintiff’s motion to expedite the trial (Doc. 77).

For the reasons set forth above, the court hereby ORDERS

that:

(1) “Plaintiff’s Motion to Subrogate His Electronic

Filing” Mot. (Doc. 76) is GRANTED;

(2) from the date of entry of this order, notice and

service upon plaintiff shall be by first class mail

to his last known address provided to the court, P.O.

Box 26246, Tempe, Arizona 85285;

(3) the order entered on November 28, 2012 (Doc. 74) and 

the judgment entered on November 28, 2012 (Doc. 75)

are both VACATED;

(4) plaintiff shall have fifteen (15) days from the date

of entry of this order in which to either pay the

$350.00 filing fee or file a response showing good

cause why he cannot pay the filing fee;

(5) if plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, 

as directed in paragraph (3) above, the court may

dismiss this action without further notice, see

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for

failure to comply with any order of the Court); 

(6) defendants shall file a reply, if any, within

fifteen (15) days after service of the responsive

memorandum; and 

. . .

Case 2:11-cv-00097-JJT Document 81 Filed 04/25/13 Page 8 of 9
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

- 9 -

(7) “Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Trial Date” (Doc. 77)

is DENIED without prejudice to renew.

DATED this 25th day of April, 2013.

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se at P.O. Box

26246, Tempe, AZ 85285

Case 2:11-cv-00097-JJT Document 81 Filed 04/25/13 Page 9 of 9