Cordero Anthony Martin v. City of McFarland, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Cordero Anthony Martin’s request for a hearing because no defendant had appeared and an ex parte hearing would be improper. The court construed and granted the motion to the extent it sought a case-status update, explained that the amended complaint remained pending preliminary screening, and directed the Clerk to attach a notice-of-change-of-address form.

Holdings

1. The court denied Plaintiff's request for a hearing because, in the absence of any appearing defendant, the hearing would improperly be conducted ex parte.
2. The court granted the motion to the extent it requested information about the status of the case, explaining that the first amended complaint remained pending preliminary screening and that a subsequent order would address whether the claims were cognizable.
3. The court advised Plaintiff that, absent a court order otherwise, he must submit documents in paper; that the electronic filing system generally is available only to registered attorneys; and that he must keep the court informed of his current address.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should conduct a hearing concerning the status and future procedure of the action when no defendant had appeared.
2. Whether the court should provide a status update and information concerning filing, address-update, and future screening procedures.
3. Whether the court should grant Plaintiff access to the court's electronic filing system or authorize remote appearances.

Disposition

other