Filed: Aug. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY Re: Dkt. No. 104 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . Before the Court is defendant Chris DeMassa's ("DeMassa") Motion, filed August 16, 2019, "for Permission for Electonic Case Filing." As explained below, said motion is DeMassa's second motion seeking such permission. Having read and considered the second motion, the Court, for the reasons stated below, will deny the motion without prejudice.
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY Re: Dkt. No. 104 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . Before the Court is defendant Chris DeMassa's ("DeMassa") Motion, filed August 16, 2019, "for Permission for Electonic Case Filing." As explained below, said motion is DeMassa's second motion seeking such permission. Having read and considered the second motion, the Court, for the reasons stated below, will deny the motion without prejudice. ..
More
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY
Re: Dkt. No. 104
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is defendant Chris DeMassa's ("DeMassa") Motion, filed August 16, 2019, "for Permission for Electonic Case Filing." As explained below, said motion is DeMassa's second motion seeking such permission. Having read and considered the second motion, the Court, for the reasons stated below, will deny the motion without prejudice.
First, the instant motion, which consists of a court form to be completed by the applicant, is not complete. Specifically, DeMassa has not checked the boxes on the form indicating he has the type of equipment and programs that are necessary to electronically file documents.
Additionally, the motion does not address DeMassa's prior statement that he is unable to use the district court's electronic case filing ("ECF") system. In particular, although the Court, by order filed July 10, 2018, had granted DeMassa's first motion seeking permission to electronically file documents, DeMassa subsequently advised the Court, in a declaration filed November 2, 2018, that he is unable to use ECF. At that time, DeMassa had filed a motion to set aside his default, in which he argued, inter alia, he had not received certain court filings. Although each such filing was fully available to him through the ECF system, he explained his inability to obtain such filings as follows:
In July 2018, the Court granted me access to PACER. It did not work. I called the court for help, but never heard back. On Oct. 27th, my wife was able to access PACER. I did not know/notice emails were functional for access. I intentionally did not open links because I thought they were [handwriting illegible] access. I just did not understand how everything worked with the court. For court submissions, I have not used ECF. Not sure how.
(See DeMassa Decl. at 2.) The Court thereafter set aside DeMassa's default, but also vacated its order of July 10, 2018, in light of the above-quoted statement by DeMassa. Nothing in this second motion for permission to electronically file documents indicates DeMassa's circumstances have changed.
Accordingly, the instant motion, DeMassa's second motion for permission to electronically file documents, is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to DeMassa's submitting a third motion in which he indicates he has the equipment and programs necessary to electronically file and in which he further states, whether by an attachment or other means, that, notwithstanding the statements in his declaration filed November 2, 2018, he is now able to use the ECF system to obtain court filings and to electronically file his own documents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
