From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Herko v. Yuma County Sheriff's Office

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Jul 18, 2011
No. CV-11-0967-PHX DGC (D. Ariz. Jul. 18, 2011)

Opinion

No. CV-11-0967-PHX DGC.

July 18, 2011


ORDER


Plaintiff, a former professional photographer, claims that Defendants unlawfully seized and destroyed copyrighted photographs and other data stored on his personal computer. He brought suit asserting civil rights violations and various other claims. Doc. 1.

Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepaying fees or costs (Doc. 2) will be granted. Doc. 2. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to allow electronic filing (Doc. 3) will be denied. The Court's policy is to require pro se litigants to submit documents in paper form so that the Clerk's Office can ensure the documents are properly filed. See LRCiv 5.5(d); ECF Admin. Policies Procedures Manual, Dist. of Ariz. § II(B)(3).

Plaintiff is advised that although he is proceeding pro se, he must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ("Local Rules"). See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) ("Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants."); Carter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) ("Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates."). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available at the following Internet website:www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the Court's Local Rules of Civil Procedure may be obtained in the Clerk's Office and are available online at the Court's Internet website:www.azd.uscourts.gov (follow hyperlink titled "Opinions/Orders/Rules").

Plaintiff is further advised that he is responsible for serving process on each Defendant pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action, or if he fails to comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepaying fees or costs (Doc. 2) is granted.

2. Plaintiff's motion to allow electronic filing (Doc. 3) is denied.


Summaries of

Herko v. Yuma County Sheriff's Office

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Jul 18, 2011
No. CV-11-0967-PHX DGC (D. Ariz. Jul. 18, 2011)
Case details for

Herko v. Yuma County Sheriff's Office

Case Details

Full title:Robert Herko, Plaintiff, v. Yuma County Sheriff's Office; Yuma County…

Court:United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Jul 18, 2011

Citations

No. CV-11-0967-PHX DGC (D. Ariz. Jul. 18, 2011)