Peterson v. HVM L.L.C.

Full title: ANDREA PETERSON, Plaintiff, v. HVM L.L.C., et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Date published: Jan 8, 2015

Civ. No. 14-1137 (KM)(SCM) (D.N.J. Jan. 8, 2015)

Opinion

Civ. No. 14-1137 (KM)(SCM)

01-08-2015

ANDREA PETERSON, Plaintiff, v. HVM L.L.C., et al., Defendants.

Kevin McNulty United States District Judge

OPINION & ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Andrea Peterson has filed a motion for ECF filing privileges (No. 25) ("Mot."). Ms. Peterson has requested ECF filing privileges at least four other times (Nos. 15, 21, 22, 23). The Court denied her request each time. Ms. Peterson's request will be denied once again.

As I have noted previously, Local Rule 5.2(4) provides that "A party who is not represented by counsel must file documents with the Clerk as a Paper Filing." Ms. Peterson is not represented by counsel. Therefore, the local Rule requires her to make paper filings. That other districts may have granted ECF filing privileges—which plaintiff also pointed out in her prior applications—does not alter this District's Local Rule.

Plaintiff is cautioned that the Court's rulings are final. They will not be reconsidered except in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(i). All grounds for relief must be stated in the initial motion. The making of serial motions for the same relief is not authorized and, absent good cause, may expose a litigant to the imposition of sanctions.

Plaintiff expresses concerns about the reliability of paper filing by mail. Filing by mail was the norm in all cases for decades, if not centuries, and it continues to be the norm in pro se cases. This motion was mailed from Georgia on Friday, December 19, 2014, and filed on Tuesday, December 23, 2014. If routine deadlines must be relaxed by a day or two to accommodate mailing, the Magistrate Judge may do so.

Plaintiff expresses concerns about the expense of service. She may, at the initial case conference, discuss with the Magistrate Judge and defense counsel whether streamlined service procedures can be devised. Court filings, however, must conform to the Court's rules.

The Court has considered the Motion, reviewed the entire case record, and decided the motion without oral argument in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. Therefore,

IT IS, on this 8th day of January 2015,

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for ECF filing privileges (No. 25) is

DENIED. Plaintiff shall continue to make paper filings with the Court.

/s/_________

Kevin McNulty

United States District Judge