Opinion
5:24-cv-460-TJC-PRL
09-19-2024
JAMES J. FOSTER, Plaintiff, v. SUMTER LANDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT and CENTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, Defendants.
ORDER
PHILIP R. LAMMENS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff's motion to use CM/ECF (Doc. 10), in which Plaintiff requests permission to electronically file using the Court's CM/ECF system. Plaintiff states that he initially filed this suit in state court and was able to use the state court's system for electronic filing and service of documents, but that upon removal of the action to this Court he has not had access to the Court's CM/ECF system. Plaintiff recites that he is familiar with the CM/ECF system and has previously used it prior to retiring from the practice of law in 2023. He also recites that he has been admitted to practice before numerous United States District Courts and was previously admitted pro hac vice in this District in a group of patent cases pending during 2014-2015. (Doc. 10).
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff's motion fails to comply with the Local Rules of this Court in that it lacks the necessary certification required under Local Rule 3.01(g), including the recitations required under the rule. Although Plaintiff states that the motion is unopposed, it is unclear whether the required good faith conference has taken place, and the Defendants' position regarding the motion is uncertain.
Further, this Court's Administrative Procedures for Electronic Filing state that a pro se litigant is not permitted to file electronically, absent authorization by the Court. Meanwhile, Plaintiff has not provided any compelling basis for his request. While the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff may find using the CM/ECF filing system more convenient and that Plaintiff has more experience using CM/ECF than the typical pro se party, the Court is disinclined to deviate from the rule disallowing pro se parties to file electronically.
Plaintiff may, of course, avail himself of a variety of services available through the United States Postal Service, including mail or package pickup from a home or business. See https://www.usps.com/. Additionally, Plaintiff is free to access and view court records for this case or others via PACER. See https://www.pacer.gov/. The Court also observes that Plaintiff has already successfully filed at least one pleading in this case. Finally, the Court notes that the District offers an electronic document submission web portal (https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/electronic-document-submission-web-portal). The portal allows a pro se litigant to submit a document for filing on the Court's electronic filing system.
In light of the above considerations, Plaintiff's motion to use CM/ECF (Doc. 10) is DENIED (Doc. 10), however such denial is without prejudice to the right to file a motion, if necessary, requesting an extension of time for any particular filing deadline.
Finally, Plaintiff is cautioned that despite proceeding pro se, he is required to comply with this Court's Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Evidence. Plaintiff may obtain a copy of the Local Rules from the Court's website (http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov) or by visiting the Office of the Clerk of Court. Also, resources and information related to proceeding in court without a lawyer, including a handbook entitled Guide for Proceeding Without a Lawyer, can be located on the Court's website (http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/prose/default.htm).
DONE and ORDERED