Opinion
Case No: C 10-4576 SBA.
March 29, 2011
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION OF UNREASONABLE BURDEN Docket 22, 23
This is a pro se employment discrimination action brought by Plaintiff Duane Roberson against Defendant St. Anthony Foundation. On November 2, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. 9. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 22, 2010, which was followed by motion to file a Second Amended Complaint on January 24, 2011. Dkt. 10, 13, 14. Plaintiff also requested a waiver of PACER access fees. Dkt. 12. On March 16, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and ordered the United States Marshal to effect service of the Second Amended Complaint on Defendant. Dkt. 18. In the same order, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for a waiver of PACER access fees.
On March 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a one-sentence long motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's reason for seeking to file yet another pleading is "to make some corrections to the information regarding the document layout." Dkt. 23. However, Plaintiff's motion does not comport with Civil Local Rule 7-2, which sets forth the procedural requirements for noticed motions filed in this Court. The failure to comply with a district court's local rules constitutes grounds for summary denial of a motion. See Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin. Cal., Inc., 606 F.3d 577, 582 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding district court's denial of motion to tax costs which was not in compliance with the court's local rules). Although Plaintiff is representing himself in this action, he is nevertheless obligated to follow the same rules as represented parties. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.") (per curiam); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (same). Self-representation is not an excuse for non-compliance with court rules. See Swimmer v. I.R.S., 811 F.2d 1343, 1344 (9th Cir. 1987) ("[i]gnorance of court rules does not constitute excusable neglect, even if the litigant appears pro se.") (citation omitted). In addition, the Court notes that it recently ordered service of the Second Amended Complaint on Defendant. Once Defendant has been served, Plaintiff may meet and confer with Defendant or its counsel regarding his request to file a Third Amended Complaint.
Also before the Court is Plaintiff's renewed his motion for a waiver of PACER fees. Dkt. 22. Plaintiff contends that his state disability insurance "[ran] out back in September 2010," and therefore, he cannot afford to pay PACER fees. Id. This motion also violates the Local Rules. Before seeking reconsideration of any pre-judgment order, a litigant must first seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration and make the requisite showing under Local Rule 7-9. Plaintiff failed to follow this procedure. In addition, the Court is not persuaded that a waiver of PACER fees is necessary or appropriate in this case. As a pro per litigant, Plaintiff has been served and will continue to be served with copies of orders issued by this Court. Likewise, Defendant, once served, will be required to serve copies of all of its court filings on Plaintiff. As such, Plaintiff will have copies the documents necessary to prosecute this case. In addition, Plaintiff is free to review the docket at the Clerk's Office in Oakland, San Francisco or San Jose. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint and Motion of Unreasonable Burden are DENIED. This Order terminates Docket Nos. 22 and 23.
IT IS SO ORDERED.