# Crockett

> District Court, M.D. Florida · December 8, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11217039

## Case

- **Full name:** Joshua Crockett v. Orange County Board of County Commissioners
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** December 8, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11217039

## Opinion text

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-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11217039. Public record. Not legal advice.