Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02580/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02580-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antoine Douglass Johnson
Petitioner
Paul Thompsen
Respondent

Document Text:

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTOINE DOUGLASS JOHNSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

J. SALAZAR, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:18-cv-0988 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

ANTOINE DOUGLASS JOHNSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

PAUL THOMPSEN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:18-cv-1977 JAM AC P 

ORDER 

ANTOINE DOUGLASS JOHNSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

PAUL THOMPSEN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:18-cv-2580 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

Case 2:18-cv-02580-MCE-AC Document 22 Filed 04/21/20 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 

2 

 In each of the above-listed cases, petitioner has requested “free enrollment to public 

access to court electronic records (“PACER”).” See Johnson v. Salazar, No. 2:18-cv-0988 MCE 

AC P, ECF No. 40; Johnson v. Thompsen, 2:18-cv-1977 JAM AC P, ECF No. 23, and Johnson v. 

Thompsen, 2:18-cv-2580 MCE AC P, ECF No. 20. These requests are denied without prejudice 

because they lack the “explanation of reasons” required by Local Rule 133. Denial without 

prejudice means that petitioner may bring the motions again. Second motions to e-file should 

include the necessary information described below. 

 Although the Eastern District of California is an electronic management/filing district, 

unrepresented persons are required to file and serve paper documents unless the assigned District 

Judge or Magistrate Judge grants leave to utilize electronic filing. L.R. 133(a), (b)(2). A pro se 

party may bring a request to use electronic filing as a written motion setting out an explanation of 

reasons for the requested exception. L.R. 133(b)(3). Once petitioner is approved to file 

documents electronically, the petitioner will no longer receive any documents by mail, and the 

court will not accept paper documents from petitioner, meaning petitioner can no longer mail in 

any filings. 

 A motion to e-file must make clear whether petitioner is familiar with the requirements 

applicable to electronic filing in this court, and whether petitioner has access to the hardware and 

software needed for electronic filing. Petitioner will be given an opportunity to file a renewed 

motion to e-file, and that request must specify the following: 

1. That petitioner has reviewed the requirements for electronic filing1

 and agrees to abide 

by them, and that he understands that once petitioner registers for electronic filing, all notices and 

documents will be received by e-mail and not by regular mail, and 

2. Whether petitioner has regular access to the following technical requirements 

necessary for electronic filing: (a) a computer with internet access; (b) an e-mail account for 

receiving notifications from the electronic filing system; (c) a PACER (Public Access to Court 

Electronic Records) account; (d) a word-processing program; (e) PDF conversion software to 

1

 The CM/ECF User Manual is available on the court’s website at: 

http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/cmecf-e-filing/cmecf-users-manual/. 

Case 2:18-cv-02580-MCE-AC Document 22 Filed 04/21/20 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 

3 

convert word processing documents into .pdf format, and (6) a scanner for exhibits or other 

supporting documents that are only in paper format. 

 Failure to address each of these items will result in the denial of any second motion to efile. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Petitioner’s motion to receive free enrollment to PACER in Johnson v. Salazar, No. 

2:18-cv-0988 MCE AC P (ECF No. 40) is DENIED without prejudice; 

2. Petitioner’s motion to receive free enrollment to PACER in Johnson v. Thompsen, 

2:18-cv-1977 JAM AC P (ECF No. 23) is DENIED without prejudice, and 

3. Petitioner’s motion to receive free enrollment to PACER in Johnson v. Thompsen, 

2:18-cv-2580 MCE AC P (ECF No. 20) is DENIED without prejudice. 

DATED: April 20, 2020 

Case 2:18-cv-02580-MCE-AC Document 22 Filed 04/21/20 Page 3 of 3