Opinion

Crockett

Court
District Court, M.D. Florida
Filed
Dec 8, 2025
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

JOSHUA CROCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-1234-AGM-LHP

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,

Defendant

ORDER

(And Direction to Clerk of Court)

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following

motion filed herein:

MOTION: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CM/ECF ACCESS (Doc.

No. 40)

FILED: July 31, 2025

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff Joshua Crockett, proceeding pro se, requests access to the Court’s

CM/ECF electronic docketing system. Doc. No. 40. Upon review, the motion is

due to be denied for two reasons.

First, the motion fails to comply with the conferral requirements of Local Rule

3.01(g)(3). Second, “[w]hile an unrepresented individual may obtain the Court’s

permission to file his submissions electronically using the CM/ECF system, such

authorization is typically denied unless the pro se party makes a showing of good

cause or extenuating circumstances justifying such relief.” Hooker v. Wilkie, No.

8:20-cv-1248-T-02CPT, 2020 WL 6947482, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 4, 2020) (citations

omitted).

Here, Plaintiff makes no such showing. The basis for Plaintiff’s request is

that he suffers prejudice as a pro se litigant through “unnecessary delays and

excessive costs” due to his living in Arizona, the mailing of his filings, and the loss

of access to the Court’s web portal, and that Defendants have engaged in various

procedural violations. Doc. No. 40, at 1-4. With respect to the concerns regarding

costs and delays, these concerns are common to all pro se litigants who file paper

documents, and if these burdens were enough to justify CM/ECF access, the

exception would swallow the rule. See, e.g., Pouyeh v. Pub. Health Tr. of Jackson

Health Sys., No. 24-10988, 2025 WL 2319399, at *6–7 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2025) (denial

of CM/ECF access to plaintiff living overseas did not violate right of access to the

courts because right of access is “neither absolute nor conditional”); Clifft v. Sch.

Dist. of Lee Cnty., No. 2:25-cv-345-JES-DNF, 2025 WL 3012038, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct.

28, 2025), reconsideration denied, No. 2:25-cv-345-JES-DNF, 2025 WL 3080533 (M.D.

Fla. Nov. 4, 2025) (affirming denial of CM/ECF access to pro se litigants, finding that

unpredictable delays and mail delivery risks, complexity of the case, and inability

to obtain legal counsel did not rise to the level necessary to justify CM/ECF access);

Sheets v. Pribble, No. 2:24-cv-958-JES-KCD, 2025 WL 2106679, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July

28, 2025) (denying motion for CM/ECF access and explaining that discontinuation

of the Court’s web portal “does not constitute a legal barrier to participation” given

that a litigant may still “file documents through the mail”). In addition, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure already account for paper filings and add three (3) days to

a party’s deadline when service is made by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). The

concerns regarding Defendant’s purported procedural violations can also be

addressed either sua sponte by the Court or by the filing of an appropriate motion.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 40) is DENIED. That said, “the

Court in its discretion may grant a pro se party permission to receive electronic

notifications.” See Moore v. Adventist Health Sys. Sunbelt Healthcare Corp., No. 6:23-

cv-1163-PGB-DCI, 2023 WL 4947933, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2023). The Court finds

it appropriate to exercise such discretion here. See id.; see also Cromity v. City of

Orlando, No. 6:24-cv-1688-CEM-DCI, 2025 WL 435901, at *1 (allowing service of

court documents on pro se party by email); Wilkins v. RCI, LLC, No. 6:23-cv-849-PGB-

EJK, 2023 WL 3453560, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2023) (same). Therefore, the Clerk

of Court is DIRECTED to add Plaintiff’s email address to CM/ECF,

officialcrockett@yahoo.com, and ensure that Plaintiff receive Notices of Electronic

Filings.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on December 8, 2025.

Oy □□□□

LESLIE AN PRICE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Unrepresented Parties

_4-

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.