Phillips

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

OCALA DIVISION

SUSAN JEAN PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 5:26-cv-9-PGB-PRL

JEFFEREY CARIO, ESQ. and JAMES

R. JONES, JR., ESQ.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Exhibits (“Motion to

Seal”) (Doc. 3), including the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal

Exhibits (Doc. 4); Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Consideration (Doc. 5); and Plaintiff’s

Motion for Reasonable Accommodations Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

(“Motion for Reasonable Accommodations”) (Doc. 6). For the reasons explained below,

Plaintiff’s motions are due to be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Susan Jean Phillips, proceeding pro se, initiated this suit against Defendants

on December 18, 2025, by filing a “Civil Rights Complaint Form for Pro Se (Non-Prisoner)

Litigants in Actions Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1346 or 42 U.S.C. § 1983” (“Complaint”)

in the United States District for the Northern District of Florida and paying the $405 filing

fee. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, asserting

that the private attorneys retained by Plaintiff and her former spouse violated Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. (See generally id.).

This case was transferred to the Middle District of Florida on January 5, 2026, after

the District Court for the Northern District of Florida found that venue was not proper in that

district. (Docs. 8-9, 11, & 13). The Court in the Northern District of Florida determined that

the more appropriate venue for this action was the Middle District of Florida because both

Defendants appeared to be located in the Middle District of Florida; the events giving rise to

Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Hernando County, Florida, which is located in the Middle

District of Florida; any evidence relevant to this case likely is located in the Middle District

of Florida and not in the Northern District of Florida; and any witnesses likely are located in

the Middle District of Florida and not in the Northern District of Florida. (See Doc. 8 at p. 3).

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Seal (Doc. 3), the Motion for Expedited

Consideration (Doc. 5), and the Motion for Reasonable Accommodations (Doc. 6)

simultaneously with the filing of the Complaint, which are now pending before this Court

and discussed below.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Seal

Plaintiff requests that certain exhibits be sealed in this case because those “exhibits

document the very events that caused Plaintiff’s neurological and psychological injury.”

(Doc. 4 at p. 2). She claims that “public dissemination [of those exhibits] would require

repeated exposure to traumatic material, causing re-victimization[,] and impairing Plaintiff’s

ability to participate meaningfully in the proceedings[,]” as well as “expose [her] and others

to heightened safety risks.” (Id. at pp. 2-3). Plaintiff contends that the exhibits contain

Plaintiff’s medical information, disability-related records, financial data, and identifying

information of private individuals and family members. (Id. at p. 2).

Local Rule 1.11 governs the sealing of items in a civil action in this district. See generally

M.D. Fla. Local Rule 1.11. In particular, when filing a motion to seal an item, the movant

must provide the following:

(1) [M]ust include the title ‘Motion to Seal Under [Statute, Rule, or Order]’ or,

if no statute, rule, or order applies, ‘Motion to Seal’; (2) must describe the item;

(3) must establish (A) that filing the item is necessary, (B) that sealing the item

is necessary, and (C) that using a redaction, a pseudonym, or a means other

than sealing is unavailable or unsatisfactory; (4) must include a legal

memorandum; (5) must propose a duration for the seal; (6) must state the name,

mailing address, email address, and telephone number of the person authorized

to retrieve a sealed, tangible item; (7) must certify the name, mailing address,

email address, and telephone number of any non-party the movant knows or

reasonably should know has an interest in establishing or maintain the seal and

the day on which, and the means by which, the movant served or otherwise

delivered the motion to the non-party; and (8) must include the item, which is

sealed pending an order resolving the motion.

M.D. Fla. Local Rule 1.11(b).

In addition to compliance with the Local Rules, the Eleventh Circuit requires a strong

showing by the proponent of a motion to seal before the Court will deny public access to

judicial proceedings. See Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992)

(“Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties’ case,

but also the public’s case.”). Indeed, courts in this country “recognize a general right to inspect

and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” See Nixon

v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (internal footnotes omitted); Chicago Trib.

Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)

(recognizing that it has long been established that the public has a common law right to access

judicial proceedings, including the right to inspect and copy public records and court

documents). The filing of documents under seal is generally disfavored because, as the

Eleventh Circuit has explained, “[t]he operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of

judges are matters of utmost public concern, and common-law right of access to judicial

proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the

integrity of the process.” See Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir.

2007) (citation omitted); Graphic Packaging Int’l, Inc. v. C.W. Zumbiel Co., No. 3:10-cv-891-J-

JBT, 2010 WL 6790538, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 28, 2010).

However, “[t]he common law right of access may be overcome by a showing of good

cause, which requires ‘balanc[ing] the asserted right of access against the other party’s interest

in keeping the information confidential.’” See Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (providing several

factors that courts may consider when balancing these interests) (quoting Chicago Trib. Co.,

263 F.3d at 1309); see also Brown, 960 F.2d at 1016 (explaining that unless a party can show

“extraordinary circumstances,” a court file must remain accessible to the public). “[A] party

requesting to seal any portion of a judicial record bears [a] heavy burden of showing that the

material is the kind of information that courts will protect.” Doe v. Neighborhood Rest. Partners,

No. 8:22-cv-2483-TPB-CPT, 2022 WL 17360654, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2022) (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted).

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal does not comply with the

requirements of Local Rule 1.11(b). Plaintiff fails to establish that using a redaction or means

other than sealing is unavailable or unsatisfactory, propose a duration for the seal, and she

did not attach the items proposed for sealing. Aside from these procedural deficiencies,

Plaintiff has not met her burden of demonstrating good cause to seal the exhibits or any other

filings in this case. In short, Plaintiff does not provide adequate support for her broad and

vague request to seal documents in this action.

B. Motion for Reasonable Accommodations

Plaintiff requests reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities

Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), so that she can be afforded equal access to

judicial proceedings and review. (Doc. 6). In her motion styled as a Motion for Reasonable

Accommodations, Plaintiff states that she has been diagnosed “with disabilities affecting [her]

communication processing, stress response, and the ability to participate effectively in legal

proceedings without written support and procedural assistance.” (Id. at pp. 1-2). She contends

that her disabilities “substantially limit major life activities involving communication,

concentration, and stress regulation in high-demand environments such as court

proceedings.” (Id. at p. 2). Given these limitations from her disabilities, Plaintiff asks for the

following accommodations: (1) that all communications (including instructions, notices,

scheduling information, deadlines, and other requirements) be provided to her in writing; (2)

that she receive extensions or additional time when needed; (3) assignment of an ADA

coordinator, designated court staff, or other advocate to assist her; (4) assistance with

electronic filing; and (5) personal assistive technology that allow her to participate effectively

in hearings. (See id. at pp. 2-4).

With respect to Plaintiff’s request to receive communications in writing, the Court’s

Order for Pro Se Litigants entered on January 6, 2026, provides that “[t]he Court will mail to

you a copy of every order entered by the Court to the last address it has on file.” (Doc. 10 at

pp. 3-4). Plaintiff is advised to review the Court’s Order for Pro Se Litigants (Doc. 10),

highlighting the commonly applicable rules that pro se litigants must follow in this Court. As

to electronic filings, Plaintiff has not requested, nor has the Court permitted Plaintiff to file

documents in CM/ECF or receive electronic notices of filing via email in this case. See

Admin. Proc. for Elec. Filing § B (Nov. 18, 2025) for the United States District Court, Middle

District of Florida (“Absent a court order, a pro se litigant is not permitted to file documents

in CM/ECF.”); 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) (“[T]he Court in its discretion may

grant a pro se party permission to receive electronic notifications.”). Should Plaintiff wish to

file documents electronically or receive notices of electronic filing via email, she may file the

appropriate motion requesting permission to do so.

As for accommodations and access to judicial proceedings, Plaintiff “is entitled, as are

all litigants, to reasonable access to the court.” See Allen-Armbrister v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 820

F. App’x 867, 869 (11th Cir. 2020). The Court provides assistance to participants in court

proceedings who are deaf, hearing-impaired, or have communication disabilities. Plaintiff

may visit the Court’s website for further information regarding accommodations and services

that the Court provides (https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/accommodations).

With regard to Plaintiff’s request regarding extensions, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks

additional time to comply with any deadlines set forth in the Local Rules or any Court Order,

Plaintiff may file a motion requesting an extension of time or other specific relief when

needed. See generally M.D. Fla. Local Rule 3.01. While the Court is aware that Plaintiff is

proceeding pro se, without the benefit of counsel, and that she alleges that various impairments

impact her ability to think, communicate, and concentrate, Plaintiff is still required to follow

the same procedural rules and deadlines as other litigants. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835,

837 (11th Cir. 1989); (Doc. 10 at p. 1) (stating that the rules including, among others, the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Local Rules of the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida “apply to all parties regardless

of whether they have a lawyer”) (citing Moon, 863 F.2d at 837). Courts cannot act as counsel

for plaintiffs or rewrite pleadings. See United States v. Cordero, 7 F.4th 1058, 1068 n.11 (11th

Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). And pro se litigants must still comply with the procedural rules

applicable to ordinary civil litigation. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

To the extent Plaintiff requests court-appointed counsel, Plaintiff has no right to the

appointment of counsel, and she has not shown the existence of any exceptional

circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel at this early stage in the litigation. See

Poole v. Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (stating that the

appointment of counsel is a privilege justified only by the existence of exceptional

circumstances, such as where the facts and legal issues in the case are so novel or complex as

to require the assistance of a trained practitioner) (citation omitted); Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d

189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993) (reasoning that the key question for a court determining whether to

appoint counsel “is whether the pro se litigant needs help in presenting the essential merits of

his or her position to the court[,] and “[w]here the facts and issues are simple, he or she usually

will not need such help”); Collins v. Homestead Corr. Inst., 452 F. App’x 848, 850 (11th Cir.

2011) (per curiam) (listing several factors that courts consider in determining whether to

appoint counsel for a pro se litigant). A review of the pleadings reveals that the legal issues

involved in this action are neither complex nor novel. (See Doc. 1). Additionally, upon review

of the filings made to date, Plaintiff has demonstrated that she can prepare her own

submissions to the Court, she has a basic understanding of the legal process, and can articulate

her position as well as that of the average pro se litigant.

Further, an ADA coordinator or other individual who is not a licensed attorney cannot

represent the legal interests of Plaintiff in this action, and as such, she may not receive legal

assistance regarding the Court’s procedures. See Bey on behalf of Baxter v. Florida, No. 4:24-cv-

517-MW/ZCB, 2025 WL 351425, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2025), report and recommendation

adopted sub nom. Bey on Behalf of Baxter v. State, 2025 WL 350387 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2025)

(“Put simply, an individual who is not a licensed attorney may not represent the legal interests

of another person in federal court.”) (internal footnote omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 1654

(authorizing parties in federal cases to “plead and conduct their own cases personally or by

counsel”); see also Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159 (1988) (“Regardless of his

persuasive powers, an advocate who is not a member of the bar may not represent [parties]

(other than himself) in court.”) (internal footnote omitted).

Despite proceeding pro se, Plaintiff is reminded that she is still 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. Additionally,

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/pro_se/default.htm).

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Exhibits (Doc. 3) is DENIED.

(2) Plaintiff’s motion styled as a Motion for Reasonable Accommodations Under the

Americans with Disabilities Act (Doc. 6) is DENIED.

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Consideration (Doc. 5) is DENIED as moot, in

light of the issuance of this Order.

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on January 13, 2026.

PHILIP R. LAMMENS

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Unrepresented Parties

-9-