Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01238/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01238-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MURRAY A. POWELL, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES and )

DOES 1 through 50, )

 )

Defendants. )

)

) 

No. CV-F-05-1238 REC DLB

ORDER DECLINING TO CONSIDER

PLAINTIFF’S LETTER OF

DECEMBER 6, 2005, AND

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES

REGARDING SUBMISSION AND

SERVICE OF FILINGS WITH THE

COURT.

On November 28, 2005, the Court received a letter from

Plaintiff informing the Court of his intent to appeal the Court’s

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, Denying Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss, and Transferring Action to the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami

Division (the “Order”) (Doc. 19) , which it issued November 17,

2005 . On November 30, 2005, the Court received another letter

from Plaintiff that reiterated Plaintiff’s position that the

Court erred when it issued the Order. 

On December 6, 2005, the Clerk of the Court received via fax

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 24 Filed 12/12/05 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

2

another letter from Plaintiff. The letter states Plaintiff’s

belief that Defendant counsel and the Court engaged in misconduct

in connection with the Order. Page 2 of the letter also

indicates that Plaintiff intends to send “a detailed letter

proving the felonies by attorney Tucker and the proof that I

cannot travel to either Fresno or Miami . . . .”

As a pro per litigant, Plaintiff has a duty to acquaint

himself with the rules that govern proceedings in this Court. 

L.R. 83-183(a) (failure of pro per litigant to comply with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules “may be

ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or any other sanction

appropriate under these Rules”).

Local Rule 5-133(e) provides, “Documents directly faxed to

the Clerk or to a chambers of the Court will not be filed,

lodged, received, returned, or acknowledged, absent an express

order of the court.” Furthermore, “[e]xcept as expressly

authorized in advance by the Court, all paper documents presented

for filing or lodging shall be delivered to the Clerk who will,

when appropriate, deliver the documents to the Judge or

Magistrate Judge after docketing. Original documents to be filed

or lodged shall not be mailed to chambers.” L.R. 5-133(d)(1)

(emphasis added).

Plaintiff appears to have failed to serve Defendant any of

this correspondence. “Unless a party expressly waives service,

copies of all documents submitted to the Court shall be served

upon all parties to the action, . . . .” L.R. 5-135(b).

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 24 Filed 12/12/05 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

Accordingly:

1. The letter of December 6, 2005, was improperly filed

and will not be considered by the Court.

2. Plaintiff is directed to submit paper copies of any

future filings with the Clerk of the Court in

compliance with Local Rule 5-133.

3. Plaintiff is directed to serve on all parties to the

action a copy of all documents it submits to the Court

in the future pursuant to Local Rule 5-135.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

810ha4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01238-REC-DLB Document 24 Filed 12/12/05 Page 3 of 3