Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01546/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01546-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD WALKER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

POLICE CHIEF JOHN DOE, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:19-cv-01546-LJO-SKO

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR 

PERMISSION TO FILE 

ELECTRONICALLY

(Doc. 9)

Before the Court is Plaintiff Harold Walker’s “Application for Permission for Electronic 

Filing.” (Doc. 9.) Local Rule 133(b)(2) provides that “[a]ny person appearing pro se may not utilize 

electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” Instead, 

“[a]ll parties shall file and serve paper documents as required by applicable Federal Rules of Civil . 

. . Procedure or by these [Local] Rules.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 133(b)(2). Nonetheless, a pro se 

party may “[r]equest to use paper or electronic filing as exceptions from these Rules” if (1) they 

submit a stipulation between the parties “as provided in [Local Rule] 143;” or (2) “if a stipulation 

cannot be had,” by a “written motion[] setting out an explanation of reasons for the exception.” E.D. 

Cal. Local Rule 133(b)(3).

Case 1:19-cv-01546-DAD-SKO Document 12 Filed 02/04/20 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

Here, the application is neither stipulated to by the defendants, nor does it set forth an 

explanation of the reasons for the exception. The Court therefore finds that it is inappropriate in 

this matter to depart from the Local Rule that “[a]ny person appearing pro se may not utilize 

electronic filing.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 133(b)(2). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the application,

(Doc. 9), subject to renewal upon a showing of sufficient reason to justify deviating from Local Rule 

133(b)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01546-DAD-SKO Document 12 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 2