Kish

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

OCALA DIVISION

CHRISTINA KISH,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 5:25-cv-678-WWB-PRL

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF CITRUS

COUNTY, FLORIDA,

Defendant.

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on a Motion for Leave to Use the Court’s Electronic

Filing System (CM/ECF) (Doc. 15), and a Motion for Leave to File First Amended

Complaint (Doc. 16) filed by pro se Plaintiff Christina Kish.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action on October 27, 2025, by filing a “Complaint for

Employment Discrimination” against the School Board of Citrus County, Florida, alleging

claims for failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, and retaliation under the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (Doc. 1). On

January 7, 2026, the Court granted Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to

Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, in which Defendant represented that its counsel conferred

with Plaintiff regarding deficiencies in her complaint, and that Plaintiff agreed to address such

issues in her amended complaint. (Doc. 14). The Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended

complaint on or before January 27, 2026, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15(a)(1), and permitted Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s amended complaint within 14 days

of its filing. (Id.).

Plaintiff now seeks leave of Court to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) (Doc. 16), and attached a copy of the amended complaint

(Doc. 16-1). Plaintiff requests leave to file an amended complaint to “clarify the factual

allegations supporting her claims, . . . more clearly plead[] the elements of [her] claims, and

incorporate[] additional facts related to exhaustion of administrative remedies and post-

charge retaliation.” (See Doc. 16 at pp. 1-2). Plaintiff’s amended complaint asserts claims

under the ADA and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat. § 760.01 et seq., for failure

to accommodate (Count I), disability discrimination (Count II), and retaliation (Count III).

(See Doc. 16-1 at pp. 5-6).

Plaintiff also seeks permission to access and file documents electronically through

CM/ECF. (Doc. 15). In support of this request, Plaintiff indicates that she has access to a

computer with a reliable internet connection and has already registered as a PACER user.

(See id. at p. 1). She further affirms that she is capable of complying with the Court’s rules and

procedures for CM/ECF. (See id. at p. 2).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Under Rule 15(a)(1), “a party may amend a pleading once as a matter of course at any

time before a responsive pleading is served.” See Shaw v. Allen, 701 F. App’x 891, 894 (11th

Cir. 2017) (per curiam); Giles v. Manser, 757 F. App’x 891, 894 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam)

(“Rule 15(a)(1) gives a plaintiff the right to amend a complaint once as a matter of course, so

long as no responsive pleading has been filed.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). A pro se plaintiff

does “not waive h[er] right to amend as a matter of course merely because [s]he filed a motion

to amend instead of amending as a matter of course.” See Toenniges v. Ga. Dep’t of Corrs., 502

F. App’x 888, 889 (11th Cir. 2012); see also Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1349 (11th Cir.

2004) (holding that the district court abused its discretion when it denied pro se plaintiff’s

motion to amend, where plaintiff filed his motion before the district court dismissed his

complaint and before any responsive pleadings were filed).

In this case, Plaintiff has yet to amend as a matter of course, and no responsive

pleading has been filed to date. Even though Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint

under Rule 15(a)(2), a party may amend its pleading with leave under Rule 15(a)(2) without

exhausting the right to amend as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1). See Toenniges, 502 F.

App’x at 889-90; Digital Assurance Certification, LLC v. Pendolino, No. 6:17-cv-72-ORL-41TBS,

2018 WL 11489597, at *3-4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2018); see also Toenniges, 502 F. App’x at 890

(noting that if a plaintiff has the right to amend as a matter of course, then “the merits of h[er]

amendment, at [this] stage, [are] irrelevant” and the “court lacks the discretion to reject the

amended complaint based on its alleged futility”) (citing Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys.

of Ga., 477 F.3d 1282, 1292 n.6 (11th Cir. 2007)); Williams, 477 F.3d at 1292 n.6 (“When the

plaintiff has the right to file an amended complaint as a matter of course . . . the court lacks the

discretion to reject the amended complaint based on its alleged futility.”) (emphasis in

original).

As such, the Court will allow Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, to exercise her one

amendment as a matter of course in this instance. However, any further amendments shall

require the opposing party’s written consent or leave of Court in accordance with Rule

15(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see also Spaulding v. Poitier, 548 F. App’x 587, 593-94

(11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First

Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) is due to be granted to the extent stated herein.

B. Motion for Leave to Use the Court’s Electronic Filing System (CM/ECF)

With regard to CM/ECF eligibility, “[a]bsent a court order, a pro se litigant is not

permitted to file documents in CM/ECF.” See Admin. Proc. for Elec. Filing § B (Nov. 18,

2025) for the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (emphasis added); see

also M.D. Fla. Local Rule 1.01(c) (“By administrative order, the court can prescribe

procedures governing electronic filing.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(3)(B)(i) (“A person not

represented by an attorney . . . may file electronically only if allowed by court order or by

local rule.”). “Pro se litigants are generally denied access to electronic filing unless

extenuating circumstances exist to justify waiving CM/ECF procedures.” Huminski v.

Vermont, No. 2:13-cv-692-FTM-29, 2014 WL 169848, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2014); see

McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. Police Dep’t, 455 F. App’x 874, 878 (11th Cir. 2011) (per

curiam) (affirming denial of CM/ECF access for pro se litigant because there was “no good

cause under the circumstances of the case to authorize his access”); Gerow v. Blackwell, No.

8:24-cv-02280-KKM-NHA, 2024 WL 4679030, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2024) (“The

Eleventh Circuit has routinely upheld this district’s practice of denying CM/ECF access to

pro se litigants absent a showing of good cause.”) (citations omitted); see also Nathansen v. City

of Punta Gorda, No. 2:25-cv-300-KCD-NPM, 2025 WL 2770876, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 26,

2025) (recognizing that access to electronic filing via CM/ECF is generally restricted because

“the CM/ECF system contains confidential and other sensitive information”) (citing Admin.

Proc. for Elec. Filing).

In this instance, Plaintiff has not shown good cause or offered any extenuating

circumstances as to why she should be permitted to access and file documents in CM/ECF.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Use the Court’s Electronic Filing System

(CM/ECF) (Doc. 15) is due to be denied.

However, the Court will permit the Plaintiff to receive electronic notification of filings

via email. Generally, a pro se litigant can receive electronic notices of filing by email, monitor

the docket through PACER,1 and submit filings in person, by U.S. Mail, or through another

delivery service. 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. (authorizing electronic notification of

filings for a pro se litigant via email); Cromity v. City of Orlando, No. 6:24-cv-1688-CEM-DCI,

2025 WL 435901, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2025) (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).

1 “Any member of the public can access electronic records of the federal courts by registering

online with PACER.” See Rothschild v. Anywhere Advisors LLC, No. 2:24-cv-304-SPC-KCD, 2024 WL

2749245, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 29, 2024). The Court’s “Guide for Proceeding Without a Lawyer”

provides instructions on how to register for PACER

(http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/pro_se/default.htm).

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) is

GRANTED to the extent stated herein. The Clerk is directed to docket Plaintiff’s

amended complaint (Doc. 16-1) as a separate docket entry.

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Use the Court’s Electronic Filing System

(CM/ECF) (Doc. 15) is DENIED.

a. Plaintiff is permitted to receive electronic notification of filings via email.

The Clerk is directed to add Plaintiff’s email address

(kish0321@outlook.com) to the docket and send all future notices of

electronic filing to this email address.

b. Plaintiff is responsible for notifying the Clerk if she changes her email

address. Plaintiff is advised to frequently check her email, as some filings

may be time-sensitive. The notices of electronic filing will contain a

hyperlink that allows the Plaintiff to view the document for the first time at

no charge. The hyperlink expires after the earlier of two events: the first use

or 15 days after the notice is emailed. An individual must access PACER

to view a document after the hyperlink has expired. The Court’s Guide for

Proceeding Without a Lawyer provides instructions on how to register for

PACER on page 13.2 Please note that when the Court allows a pro se litigant

to receive notices of filing by email, the Clerk’s office no longer mails paper

2 The Court’s Guide for Proceeding Without a Lawyer can be accessed on the Court’s website

at http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/pro_se/default.htm.

copies. As a result, Plaintiffis cautioned that she will no longer receive court

documents by U.S. mail.

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on February 2, 2026.

PHILIP R. LAMMENS

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Unrepresented Parties

-7-