Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01304/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01304-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Freedom Mortgage Corporation
Defendant
Gesele Marsh
Plaintiff
Terrance Marsh
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRANCE MARSH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01304-CDB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR E-FILING PRIVILEGES

(Doc. 10)

Pending before the Court is the motion of pro se Plaintiffs Terrance Marsh and Gesele 

Marsh (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) for permission to participate in electronic case filing, filed on 

December 13, 2024. (Doc. 10). Plaintiffs request permission to use the court’s electronic filing 

system because “[f]iling by online services makes it easier and fast and sufficient to get 

documents to courts in a timely manner and saves Plaintiffs monetarily for filing in court inperson and by mail.” (Id. at 1). In their filing, Plaintiffs also express their view that “[t]his case 

is a State case which derives from an Estoppel due to broken contract and therefore should stay 

as a State status and heard in the State court.” (Id. at 1-2).

Generally, “self-represented litigants are not permitted to e-file in this district.” Miller v. 

Sacramento City Unified School District, No. 2:21-cv-0757-JAM-CKD PS, 2021 WL 3539733, 

at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2021); see Local Rule 133(b)(2) (“Any person appearing pro se may 

not utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate 

Case 1:24-cv-01304-CDB Document 14 Filed 12/19/24 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

Judge.”). “[E]-filing is a privilege which in some circumstances may be extended to selfrepresented parties. If the case proceeds beyond the pleadings stage and plaintiff has not abused 

the filing procedures, the court will consider a further motion for e-filing privileges.” Miller, 

2021 WL 3539733 at *3.

Here, there is a pending motion to dismiss (Doc. 7). Because “it is not clear whether this 

case will proceed beyond the pleadings stage, the [C]ourt does not find good cause to depart 

from the default rule in this district not to permit self-represented litigants to e-file.” Miller v. 

Sacramento City Unified School District, No. 2:21-cv-0757-JAM-CKD PS, 2021 WL 3883916, 

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2021) Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion will be denied. The Court assures 

Plaintiffs that although they do not have access to electronically view the filings in the case, 

paper copies of all court orders (including minute orders) are mailed to them at the time of their 

issuance.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for electronic filing 

privileges (Doc. 10) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01304-CDB Document 14 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 2