Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00212/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00212-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

08cv212

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUY W. PARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BETTY W. CLINGERMAN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv212 L(WMc)

ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENTS;

DENYING ENTRY OF DEFAULT;

and DENYING LEAVE TO FILE

DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY

Plaintiff Guy W. Parker, appearing pro se, has electronically filed several documents

including some documents he designates as notices including a “Notice of Adjudicative Facts”

[doc. #8]; a “Notice of Appearance” [doc. #10]; a “Notice of Early Neutral Evaluation Report 2"

[doc. #11]; “Early Neutral Evaluation Report 3" [doc. #14]; and an affidavit in support of default

[doc. #15]. In seeking leave to file documents electronically, plaintiff stated that he agreed to

follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual

(“CM/ECF Manual”). (Motion at 1 [doc. #4]). In granting plaintiff leave, the Court advised

plaintiff to thoroughly review the CM/ECF Manual for correct filing procedures and to “comply

with the ECF Policies and Procedures, the Civil Local Rules, and the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure notwithstanding his pro se status. Failure to comply with the Rules of Court may

result in the document(s) being stricken from the record.” (Order filed February 12, 2008 [doc.

#6]).

Case 3:08-cv-00212-L-WMC Document 17 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 3
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 08cv212

Plaintiff has improperly filed the documents listed above. The filings are not in

compliance with the CM/ECF Manual. Nor are the documents in compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Civil Local Rules. 

Once a complaint is filed, service of process must be effectuated in conformity with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has already been required to strike plaintiff’s return

of service filed on February 8, 2008 because of deficiencies. (See Order filed February 12, 2008

[doc. #7]). Defendant filed a “Notice of Failure to Serve Defendant” on March 5, 2008 which

correctly sets forth the problems with plaintiff’s attempted but incomplete service of process. 

Plaintiff filed two documents entitled “response” to defendant’s notice re: service on March 11,

2008 and on March 12, 2008 [doc. #15, 16] that appear to be plaintiff’s attempt to have default

entered. The Court construes plaintiff’s “affidavits” as requests for entry of default. Because

service has not been properly effectuated, entry of default against defendant is D ENIED.

Additionally, plaintiff’s filings are not in proper form, are irrelevant at this point in the

proceedings, and are vexatious and burdensome. If a complaint is properly served, defendant

must answer the complaint or file an appropriate response to the complaint, e.g., a motion to

dismiss. Only after the answer is filed or a motion to dismiss has been denied, does the

magistrate judge schedule an Early Neutral Evaluation conference. Plaintiff’s repeated filing of

“early neutral evaluation reports” is not appropriate in the absence of an order of the court;

therefore, plaintiff’s “Notice of Adjudicative Facts” [doc. #8]; a “Notice of Appearance” [doc.

#10]; a “Notice of Early Neutral Evaluation Report 2" [doc. #11]; and “Early Neutral Evaluation

Report 3" [doc. #14] are STRICKEN from the record. 

If plaintiff seeks a ruling from the Court, he must file a motion as set forth in Civil Local 

Rule 7.1. If an opposing party files a motion, plaintiff must serve an opposition to the motion,

again as set forth in Civil Local Rule 7.1. Further failure to comply with the Rules of Court may

lead to the imposition of sanction on plaintiff. 

Finally, because plaintiff has abused the electronic filing protocol, the Court VACATES

its February 8, 2008 Order permitting plaintiff to file documents electronically. Accordingly, “all

documents submitted for filing to the Clerk’s Office by parties appearing without an attorney

Case 3:08-cv-00212-L-WMC Document 17 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 3
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 08cv212

must be in legible paper form.” CM/ECF §2(b)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 13, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. WILLIAM McCURINE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-00212-L-WMC Document 17 Filed 03/13/08 Page 3 of 3