Opinion
6:24-cv-585-CEM-LHP
06-24-2024
DIANSKY ROUZARD, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant
ORDER
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:
MOTION: MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC (E-FILING) ACCESS (Doc. No. 15)
FILED: June 18, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
The Court previously denied without prejudice Plaintiff's pro se motion seeking access to electronic filing because the motion failed to comply with Local Rules 1.08, 3.01(a), and 3.01(g), and failed to show good cause or extenuating circumstances supporting the request. Doc. Nos. 8, 11. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's second request, seeking the same relief because “[i]t would be a beneficial use for Plaintiff and for easy case management.” Doc. No. 15. Upon review, the renewed motion (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED for the same reasons previously set forth by the Court. See Doc. No. 11.
DONE and ORDERED.