Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02068/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02068-21/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Alberto Villescas is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the 

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 34; Local Rule 302. This case is 

currently set for jury trial before the undersigned on April 19, 2017. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for use of videoconference and the Court’s 

electronic filing system, filed October 26, 2016. Plaintiff indicates that he has a hearing impairment 

which requires the use of hearing aids in both ears, and he has difficulty hearing by use of a telephone. 

Plaintiff requests that any and all future hearings be conducted by videoconference instead of 

telephone. Plaintiff also requests use of the Court’s electronic filing system.

Although Plaintiff may have a hearing impairment, the Court finds that use of the telephone 

conference to be sufficient, at the present time, to accommodate Plaintiff’s needs. On October 19, 

2016, the Court held a telephonic trial scheduling conference and did not notice any difficulty on the 

ALBERTO VILLESCAS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M.T. DOTSON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02068-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR VIDEOCONFERENCE AND USE OF 

COURT’S ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM

[ECF No. 96]

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 97 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 2
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

part of Plaintiff in hearing and participating in the conference. Should Plaintiff have difficulties in the 

future, the Court will reconsider alternative avenues when conducting telephonic hearings to ensure 

that he can hear all the proceedings. The Court’s videoconferencing equipment does not provide a 

better sound quality than the telephones. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s request for use of the Court’s electronic filing system, Plaintiff 

request must be denied. Pursuant to Local Rule 133(b)(2), pro se litigants are exempt from use of the 

electronic filing system without court permission. The Court does not find the need and/or 

justification for Plaintiff to use the electronic filing system, and all filings shall be served and filed in 

paper format to be scanned by the Clerk of Court. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for videoconference and use of the Court’s 

electronic filing system is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02068-SAB Document 97 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 2