Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00251/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00251-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JARED KRISTOPHER RYSEDORPH,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00251-ADA-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RELIEF FROM E-FILING 

REQUIREMENTS AS MOOT

(ECF No. 14)

Plaintiff Jared Kristopher Rysedorph (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed an initial complaint, motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis, motion to appoint counsel, and motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF Nos. 1–4.) 

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted, (ECF No. 10), the motion to appoint 

counsel was denied without prejudice, (ECF No. 9), and the undersigned recommended that the 

motion for preliminary injunction be denied, (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been 

screened.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for relief from e-filing requirements, filed 

February 28, 2023. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff states that staff at CSATF are not following e-filing 

procedures, specifically the librarian did not stamp his originals submitted for e-filing. When 

Plaintiff received a stamped copy back from the librarian, the print is so faded that they are 

unreadable. Plaintiff states that he has no way of knowing if the Court received them in the same 

condition or if the Court received and filed the motions attached to his complaint. Plaintiff 

requests that the Court exempt him and anyone else on Yards F and G at CSATF from any future 

Case 1:23-cv-00251-KES-BAM Document 15 Filed 03/01/23 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

requirement to file electronically, due to the staff’s breach of procedure. (Id.)

First, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion is unsigned. Plaintiff is reminded that 

because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se (without an attorney), both the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules require that all filed pleadings, motions, and papers be 

signed by the party personally if the party is unrepresented. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Local Rule 

131(b). Therefore, all future filings submitted to the Court must be include Plaintiff’s signature, 

as well as the date the filing was submitted to prison authorities for mailing.

However, the Court finds it appropriate to make a one-time exception and will address the 

substance of Plaintiff’s motion. As noted above, the Court received Plaintiff’s complaint and 

attached motions, and has already issued orders and findings and recommendations addressing 

those filings. Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened, but the typewritten pages are 

legible and there is no need for Plaintiff to submit the complaint again.

Finally, Plaintiff’s request for an exemption from e-filing requirements is denied as moot. 

At this time, the Court’s Standing Order regarding electronic filing applies only to initial filings, 

or new complaints. Therefore, for the remainder of this action, Plaintiff will submit documents

by regular mail, as he has done with the instant motion. If Plaintiff wishes to initiate a new civil 

action in the future, he may file a request for exemption from the e-filing requirements at that 

time, which will be reviewed by the judge assigned to the new case. To the extent Plaintiff 

requests relief on behalf of other inmates residing on F and G Yards at CSATF, Plaintiff does not 

have standing to bring claims on behalf other individuals, and that request is denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for relief from the Court’s e-filing procedures, (ECF No. 

14), is HEREBY DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00251-KES-BAM Document 15 Filed 03/01/23 Page 2 of 2