Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01666/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01666-15/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

MARY LEE GAINES,

Plaintiff,

v.

BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

1:16-cv-01666-NONE-BAM (PC) 

ORDER REQUIRING ATTORNEY 

CHRISTINE STARKIE TO FILE WRITTEN 

RESPONSE CLARIFYING ROLE IN 

INSTANT ACTION

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Mary Lee Gaines (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Mirelez and Hoehing for deliberate 

indifference to medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On May 1, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for order requiring Plaintiff to post security 

under Local Rule 151(b). (ECF No. 60.)

Plaintiff filed two separate oppositions to Defendants’ pending motion, (ECF Nos. 66, 

67), followed by a request for the Court to disregard the second opposition, (ECF No. 69). 

Although all documents were purportedly filed by Plaintiff in pro per, both the first opposition 

and the request to disregard the second opposition were filed electronically through the Court’s 

CM/ECF system by a user named Christine Starkie. (See Docket Entries for ECF Nos. 66, 69.)

Pursuant to Local Rule 133, “[a]ny person appearing pro se may not utilize electronic 

filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” L.R. 133(b)(2) 

Case 1:16-cv-01666-DAD-BAM Document 73 Filed 02/13/20 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

(emphasis in original). The rule also requires that all pro se parties file and serve paper 

documents. Id.

The Court has received no communication from Plaintiff indicating that she has retained 

counsel in this matter, and no attorney has made an appearance. Indeed, all of Plaintiff’s recent 

filings, including the two electronically-filed documents, indicate that she continues to represent 

herself in this case. (See ECF Nos. 66, 69.) Accordingly, on February 7, 2020, the Court ordered 

that the electronically-filed documents be stricken from the record.

However, these improperly filed documents have raised questions regarding Plaintiff’s 

apparent pro se status as well as the role of attorney Christine Starkie. Therefore, the Court finds 

it appropriate to direct Christine Starkie to file a written response clarifying her role, if any, in the 

instant action. Ms. Starkie should specifically address the apparent filing of documents, for a pro 

se litigant, using her CM/ECF account, in an action where she has not appeared as counsel.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED, as follows:

1. Attorney Christine Starkie shall file a written response clarifying her role in this action, as 

discussed herein, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on Christine Starkie at the following 

mailing address:1

The Law Offices of Christine Starkie

P.O. Box 470215

San Francisco, CA 94147

3. Any request for an extension of time to comply with this order will require a showing of 

good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The Court takes judicial notice of the mailing address listed for Christine Starkie, Bar #226354, obtained from the

website for the State Bar of California on February 12, 2020.

Case 1:16-cv-01666-DAD-BAM Document 73 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 2