Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00213/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00213-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
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

 Defendant’s motion to strike, filed January 29, 2010, (dkt. # 5), is denied as moot. 1

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to strike states that plaintiff’s husband represented her in

administrative proceedings, after obtaining permission to do so by the Administrative Law Judge.

Plaintiff is informed that different courts have different procedural rules. As stated in the previous

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D.

Plaintiff,

v. NO. CIV. S-10-0213 FCD GGH PS

MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

___________________________________/

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action seemingly pro se and has paid the filing fee. 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). By order of February 4, 2010, plaintiff’s husband was directed to submit his Bar

number by February 12, 2010, and attest to his membership in the Bar of this court. Plaintiff’s

husband has filed no pleading representing that he is an attorney, and pleadings filed since that

order clearly indicate that plaintiff’s husband is not an attorney. Therefore, according to the

remainder of that order, plaintiff’s complaint is stricken. Pleadings filed since that order 1

Case 2:10-cv-00213-FCD-GGH Document 22 Filed 03/18/10 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

order, a non-attorney may not represent a party in this court unless he is a licensed by the State of

California attorney, and is a member of the Bar of this court. See E.D. Local Rule 180. 

 Plaintiff’s husband continues to note on the pleadings that he has “prepared” them. 2

2

indicate that plaintiff is now willing to represent herself in pro se.

2

Plaintiff has filed an amended motion for e-filing access, seeking permission to

utilize electronic filing. Plaintiff is informed that the local rules of this court provide that “[a]ny

person appearing pro se may not utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the

assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” E. D. Cal. L. R. 133(b)(2). Requests to use electronic

filing may be submitted as written motions setting out an explanation of reasons for the requested

exception. E. D. Cal. L. R. 133(b)(3) (“Requests to use paper or electronic filing as exceptions

from these Rules shall be submitted as stipulations as provided in L.R. 143 or, if a stipulation

cannot be had, as written motions setting out an explanation of reasons for the exception. Points

and authorities are not required, and no argument or hearing will normally be held. . . .”) 

Plaintiff’s request states that ECF is her preferred method of document

submission, and granting her request will be consistent with the general policy of encouraging

electronic submission. Therefore, plaintiff’s request will be conditionally granted. Plaintiff is

specifically warned that the court will carefully monitor plaintiff’s filings to assess their

reasonableness. Should the court discern any unreasonably expansive filings, either in number or

volume, this order will be vacated. Plaintiff is referred to the local rules regarding deadlines for

electronic filing. See E. D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(c). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The “petition for writ of review,” filed January 27, 2010, (dkt. # 1), construed

as a complaint, is stricken.

2. Defendant’s motion to strike, filed January 29, 2010 (dkt. #5), is denied as

moot. 

3. Defendants’ request for extension of time to respond to the complaint, filed

Case 2:10-cv-00213-FCD-GGH Document 22 Filed 03/18/10 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

3

February 12, 2010, (dkt. # 9), is denied as moot.

4. Plaintiff’s amended motion for e-filing access, filed February 17, 2010, (dkt. #

15), is conditionally granted. Plaintiff is directed to contact the Clerk’s Office, Jeremy Donati, at

(916) 930-4053, to provide information necessary to set up a user account.

DATED: March 18, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Sheikh0213.ord.wpd

Case 2:10-cv-00213-FCD-GGH Document 22 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 3