Opinion
Case No. 2:16-cv-00672-APG-NJK
07-01-2016
ORDER (Docket No. 8)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to proceed sua sponte. Docket No. 8. Defendant United States filed a response. Docket No. 12. No reply was filed. See Docket. The Court finds this matter properly resolved without oral argument. See LR 78-1.
Plaintiff asks the Court to waive the Federal Rules of Civil Procedural in this matter. Docket No. 8 at 1. Plaintiff bases this request on the fact that he is proceeding pro se and has been unable to obtain counsel. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff also appears to ask the Court to find that the United States waived service. Id. at 1.
Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure - both the federal rules and the Court's local rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff misconstrues LR 1.4. A federal district court, however, "can refuse to apply a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure in a civil case 'only if the Advisory Committee, [the Supreme] Court, and Congress erred in their prima facie judgment that the Rule in question transgresses neither the terms of the Enabling Act nor constitutional restrictions.'" Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2003) (alterations in original).
Plaintiff fails to make this showing. Further, Plaintiff's concerns are adequately addressed by the Ninth Circuit's directive to liberally construe the filings of pro se litigants. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, despite proceeding pro se, Plaintiff is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54.
Additionally, Plaintiff's request regarding waiver appears to be moot. The United States has appeared in the instant case, so any issue regarding waiver of service is moot.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to proceed sua sponte, Docket No. 8, is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 1, 2016.
/s/_________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge