Filed: Feb. 21, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL SHARON L. GLEASON , District Judge . Before the Court at Docket 153 is defendant Louis Holger Eklund's pro se Motion to Compell [sic]. The government responded in opposition at Docket 159. Mr. Eklund asserts that 28 U.S.C. 1691 requires all orders and rulings of the Court in his case to contain the seal of the court and be signed by the Clerk of Court. 1 Because they are not so signed and sealed, Mr. Eklund contents that all prior orders and ruling in
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL SHARON L. GLEASON , District Judge . Before the Court at Docket 153 is defendant Louis Holger Eklund's pro se Motion to Compell [sic]. The government responded in opposition at Docket 159. Mr. Eklund asserts that 28 U.S.C. 1691 requires all orders and rulings of the Court in his case to contain the seal of the court and be signed by the Clerk of Court. 1 Because they are not so signed and sealed, Mr. Eklund contents that all prior orders and ruling in h..
More
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL
SHARON L. GLEASON, District Judge.
Before the Court at Docket 153 is defendant Louis Holger Eklund's pro se Motion to Compell [sic]. The government responded in opposition at Docket 159.
Mr. Eklund asserts that 28 U.S.C. § 1691 requires all orders and rulings of the Court in his case to contain the seal of the court and be signed by the Clerk of Court.1 Because they are not so signed and sealed, Mr. Eklund contents that all prior orders and ruling in his case are void.2 Mr. Eklund thus seeks an order from this Court requiring the Clerk of Court "to go back and correct the errors in the record, and properly affix the seal of the court, and place his signature onto all writs and process that have issues in this case."3 The government responds that Mr. Eklund's motion does not identify a writ or process in this case that lacks a seal and Clerk signature, that the Court's ECF electronic filing system allows papers to be signed electronically, and that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49 permits electronic verification of court papers, thus abrogating 29 U.S.C. § 1691.4
28 U.S.C. § 1691 states that "[a]ll writs and process issuing from a court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof." Mr. Eklund's motion misunderstands the meaning of "writs and process" as used in the statute. The phrase "writs and processes" does not encompass all court orders.5 "In essence, both `writ' and `process' command or direct action or inaction on the part of an individual. [T]he term `process' as used in 28 U.S.C. § 1691 refers to an order or directive by a court which compels a person to comply with a court's demand."6 The caselaw cited by Mr. Eklund supports the conclusion that "writs" and "processes" are the types of court documents that compel enforcement of a court's demand, not routine court orders:
To my mind, the word "process," as used in Rev. St. Sec. 911, means an order of court, although it may be issued by the clerk. The summons in a common-law action, which is, I think, a "process," in the name of the court commands the sheriff or marshal to summon the defendant, etc. The writs of scire facias, fieri facias, habeas corpus, subpoenas for witnesses, subpoenas duces tecum, writs of certiorari, supersedeas, attachments, and of venire facias are all commands or orders of court that something be done. In equity the writ of subpoena, and in criminal cases the bench warrant, command that something be done.7
Even if the Court's orders and rulings were required to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1691, the Ninth Circuit has stated, in the context of a search warrant that did not have a court seal, that lack of a court's seal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1691 is a "only a technical violation" and noted that "[n]one of this circuit's cases has suppressed evidence for lack of a court seal."8 When a court follows the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court's procedure is sufficient.9 The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require only that "[w]hen the court issues an order on any post-arraignment motion, the clerk must serve notice of the entry on each party as required by Rule 49(a)."10 The Rules contain no provision requiring the Clerk of Court to sign or affix the court seal to routine court orders.
In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion at Docket 153 is DENIED.
