Filed: Mar. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2019
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Victoria Yeager, who proceeds without separate representation in this action, moves for leave to file electronically under Local Rule 183(c). ECF No. 67. Her motion is GRANTED subject to the following conditions: (1) Pro se litigants must follow the same procedural rules as litigants represented by attorneys. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565 , 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 20
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Victoria Yeager, who proceeds without separate representation in this action, moves for leave to file electronically under Local Rule 183(c). ECF No. 67. Her motion is GRANTED subject to the following conditions: (1) Pro se litigants must follow the same procedural rules as litigants represented by attorneys. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565 , 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 201..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Victoria Yeager, who proceeds without separate representation in this action, moves for leave to file electronically under Local Rule 183(c). ECF No. 67. Her motion is GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
(1) Pro se litigants must follow the same procedural rules as litigants represented by attorneys. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a).
(2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 imposes an obligation on pro se litigants and attorneys alike to certify (a) that all motions and other papers submitted to the court are "not being presented for any improper purpose"; (b) that "legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law"; and (c) that factual contentions and denials "have evidentiary support" or "are warranted on the evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a)-(b).
This court has inherent authority and authority under federal law to impose sanctions for violations of its orders and for conduct in bad faith. See, e.g., Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2001); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110, 183, 184(a); Order April 17, 2015, at 2, ECF No. 176. Filings which do not comply with these rules may be stricken and appropriate sanctions may be imposed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
