Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02599/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02599-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICOLE CHAKER, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2599-GPC(BGS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY

CASE AND GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO FILE

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

[Dkt. No. 111.] 

vs.

ROBERT ADAMS, an individual;

Officer HERZIG, an individual; CITY

OF SAN DIEGO, a government entity;

and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendant.

On June 24, 2015, the Court received a facsimile from Plaintiff requesting a four

month stay of the case due to her medical condition and a request to seal the attached

medical records. (Dkt. No. 111.) In her request, Plaintiff alleges that she is unable to

complete the “motion and declaration under oath in support of motion to proceed in

forma pauperis form” (“motion and declaration”) to demonstrate she is entitled to

appointment of counsel because of her medical condition and attaches medicalrecords

which she seeks to seal. (Id.) A hearing to address the issue of the motion and

declaration was scheduled on June 25, 2015. (Dkt. No. 109.) 

Previously, in its order filed on May 13, 2015, the Court noted that the motion

and declaration is a straight-forward, self-explanatory three page form, with many

- 1 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 113 Filed 06/25/15 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

27

28

questions just requiring a check mark, that is easy to fill out. (Dkt. No. 95.) Based 1

on Ninth Circuit authority, the Court cannot consider Plaintiff’s request for

appointment of counsel without a factual inquiry into Plaintiff’s financial condition.

See Johnson v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991); United

States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (1981). While Plaintiff seeks appointment of

counsel, she has failed to comply with the requirement of submitting a financial

affidavit. 

Due to Plaintiff’s allegation that she is unable to fill out the motion and

declaration, the Court vacates the July 25, 2015 hearing, and GRANTS Plaintiff’s

request for a short stay until July 31, 2015. Plaintiff shall then file the completed

motion and declaration on or before August 4, 2015. If Plaintiff is unable to complete

the motion and declaration by August 4, 2014, the Court will accommodate Plaintiff’s

alleged inability to fill out the form and set a telephonic hearing where the Court will

ask Plaintiff, under oath, to answer verbally the questions in the motion and

declaration. In the event that Plaintiff is unable to file the financial declaration by

August 4, 2014, the telephonic hearing will be held on August 6, 2015 at 1:00 p.m 

Plaintiff is directed to telephonically contact the Court at 619-557-7667 at 1:00 p.m.

at which point the Court will set up a teleconference with defense counsel. 

In addition, the Court finds good cause and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to file

the attached documents of her letter under seal. 

Lastly, the instant request was submitted to the Court by facsimile without a

proof of service. The Court INSTRUCTS Plaintiff to make any future filings with the

Clerk of Court either in person, or by mail. Plaintiff’s facsimile to the Court is an

improper ex parte communication pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.9 (“attorneys or

In its previous order, the Court also stated that despite Plaintiff’s allegation that 1

she is unable to read the Court’s IFP form, in February 2015, Plaintiff was able to

complete the request for fee waiver in her state court case which appears to be more

burdensome than the Court’s IFP financial affidavit form. Even though Plaintiff

appears to have completed the request for fee waiver in state court, she has not offered

the completed state fee waiver request to this Court for its consideration. (Dkt. No. 106

at 3.) 

- 2 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 113 Filed 06/25/15 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

27

28

parties to any action or proceeding must refrain from writing letters to the judge, or

otherwise communicating with the judge unless opposing counsel is present. All

matters to be called to a judge’s attention should be formally submitted as hereinafter

provided.”) Plaintiff is directed to file matters according to the Local Rules and

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, and not by facsimile. Any further ex parte

communications, or submissions by facsimile will be rejected. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 25, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 113 Filed 06/25/15 Page 3 of 3