Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01372/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01372-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marie Encar Arnold
Plaintiff
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Defendant

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

MARIA ENCAR ARNOLD,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01372-NONE-BAM

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST 

TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY

(Doc. 5)

Marie Encar Arnold (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on September 28, 

2020. (Doc. 1.) On October 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the Court’s permission to 

file documents electronically through the CM/ECF system. (Doc. 5.)

Pursuant to the Local Rules, a pro se party shall file and serve paper documents and may 

not utilize electronic filing unless granted permission by the Court. L.R. 133(a)-(b). A pro se party 

may request an exception to the paper filing requirement from the court by filing a stipulation of 

the parties, or “if a stipulation cannot be had, [a] written motion[] setting out an explanation of 

reasons for the exception.” L.R. 133(b)(3). 

Upon review of the pleadings in this action and the motion submitted, the Court finds that 

the request does not warrant an exception to the Local Rule. While Plaintiff is required to file a 

Case 1:20-cv-01372-DAD-BAM Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 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

written motion setting out an explanation of the reasons for an exception, Plaintiff instead submitted 

a form application that appears to have been obtained from the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of California, on which Plaintiff replaced the word “Northern” with “Eastern.” (Id.) As 

part of the application, Plaintiff attests that she has reviewed the requirements for e-filing, however 

Plaintiff does not provide any reasons for the need to use electronic filing. (Id.) Given this, the 

application does not comply with the requirement to submit a motion explaining the reasons for an 

exception. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for permission for 

electronic filing is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01372-DAD-BAM Document 6 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 2