Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cr-00154/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cr-00154-36/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Yasir Mehmood
Defendant
USA
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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent, 

v. 

YASIR MEHMOOD, 

Movant. 

No. 2:12-cr-00154-JAM-AC-1 

ORDER 

 Movant is a former federal prisoner, recently deported to Pakistan, who proceeds pro se 

with a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 

550. Movant has provided the court with his new mailing address, in care of a Pakistani attorney. 

Additionally, due to alleged inconveniences associated with international mail, movant requests 

that he be provided access to the court’s Case Management / Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) 

system and be served court documents at his personal email address. ECF No. 567. 

 Under Local Rule 133(b)(2), a pro se party “may not utilize electronic filing except with 

the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” (Original emphasis.) Requests to 

utilize electronic filing must be made by written motion pursuant Local Rule 133(b)(3), “setting 

out an explanation of reasons for the exception.” Here movant, by motion, explains that 

according him CM/ECF access would “help me and the court to file docs promptly” because “it 

takes at least 60 days to 75 days for international mail from Pakistan to reach USA as it is not air 

courier.” ECF No. 567 at 1-2. 

Case 2:12-cr-00154-JAM-AC Document 568 Filed 02/28/20 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 

 The court does not find this a compelling reason to make the requested exception in this 

case at this time. Briefing on movant’s Section 2255 motion is complete with the exception of his 

reply brief. Movant was informed by order filed December 13, 2019, that his reply, if any, was 

due 30 days after service of respondent’s opposition. ECF No. 564. That order was served by 

mail on the same date to movant at his last place of incarceration. Although movant informs the 

court that he was deported two days later, on December 15, 2019, the docket does not reflect that 

service of the court’s order was unsuccessful. 

 Respondent filed its opposition on February 18, 2020, ECF No. 565, which was served by 

mail on movant at his Pakistani address on February 20, 2020, ECF No. 566. Therefore, 

movant’s reply is due Monday, March 23, 2020. Should movant mail his traverse after this date, 

he shall demonstrate good cause for such delay by submitting an affidavit with appropriate 

exhibits demonstrating the timeliness of his efforts. 

 Accordingly, movant’s motion to be accorded access to the court’s CM/ECF system and 

be served court documents at his personal email address, ECF No. 567, are DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 27, 2020 

Case 2:12-cr-00154-JAM-AC Document 568 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 2