The opinion
United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Jacksonville Division
ANODA PHYLLIS KENDRICK CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v. NO. 3:25-cv-558-WWB-PDB
DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Defendant.
Order
This order addresses two pending motions and compliance with the Local
Rules and a standing order.
1.
Through a motion filed nine months after the deadline to amend the
pleadings, see Doc. 17, the plaintiff moves for leave to file a third amended
complaint to “organize … existing facts into distinct … counts,” Doc. 24 ¶ 3,
and revise the prayer for relief, Doc. 24 ¶ 6. Doc. 24. The defendant opposes
the request. Doc. 25.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “should be construed,
administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 1. All parties must comply with the rules, even if the party is
proceeding without a lawyer. McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301, 1307 (11th
Cir. 2025); see also McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)
(explaining that the Court has “never suggested that procedural rules in
ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those
who proceed without counsel”); Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th
Cir. 2007) (“[A]lthough we are to give liberal construction to the pleadings of
[unrepresented] litigants, we nevertheless have required them to conform to
procedural rules.” (internal quotation marks and quoted authority omitted)).
Rule 16(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires a district court to
enter a scheduling order that limits the time for amending pleadings. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(A). “[A] district court’s decision to hold litigants to the clear
terms of its scheduling orders is not an abuse of discretion.” Josendis v. Wall
to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1307 (11th Cir. 2011).
Under Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court should freely
permit amendment of a pleading if justice so requires. But, under Rule
16(b)(4), if a party requests amendment of a pleading after the deadline in a
scheduling order, the party must demonstrate good cause. Smith v. Sch. Bd. of
Orange Cnty., 487 F.3d 1361, 1367 (11th Cir. 2007). “[C]onsider[ing] only Rule
15(a) without regard to Rule 16(b) … would render scheduling orders
meaningless and effectively would read Rule 16(b) and its good cause
Under the rule, a court must freely provide leave to amend unless there is an
“apparent or declared reason” to do otherwise, “such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory
motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
The court need not consider whether the plaintiff satisfies Rule 15(a)’s
liberal-amendment standard because she fails to establish good cause under Rule 16(b).
requirement out of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Sosa v. Airprint Sys.,
Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998).
The good-cause standard “precludes modification unless the schedule
cannot be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Id. at
1418 (internal quotation marks omitted). “If a party was not diligent, the good
cause inquiry should end.” Id. (internal quotation marks, alterations, and
quoted authority omitted).
The plaintiff fails to demonstrate good cause. The underlying facts
occurred mostly in 2023 and 2024. Doc. 1; Doc. 14. The action has been pending
since 2025. Doc. 1. The plaintiff was informed about resources for
unrepresented litigants at the outset. Doc. 5. The deadline to amend passed
months ago. Doc. 17. Discovery ends later this month. Doc. 17. The plaintiff’s
assertion that the new pleading would restructure “existing facts” from her
previous pleadings and would not introduce “surprise allegations,” Doc. 24
¶¶ 3–4, suggests that she had the relevant information when she filed the
operative pleading and before the deadline for amending pleadings expired.
And the defendant will suffer undue prejudice, as explained in its response,
Doc. 25 at 47.
The court denies the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint, Doc. 24.
2.
The court grants the plaintiff’s motion for access to the Electronic Case
Filing (ECF) system, Doc. 26. She may access ECF at the court’s website,
www.flmd.uscourts.gov, after obtaining a login and password. She must have
the following resources to fully access ECF: internet access, an e-mail account,
PDF capabilities, and a PACER account. ECF access is limited to this case.
Information about registering for an ECF account and electronic filing is
on the court’s website and attached to this order. The plaintiff must become
familiar with, and follow, the policies and procedures in the Administrative
Procedures for Electronic Filing, which are also on the court’s website. Clerk’s
office personnel are available to answer specific questions during hours the
clerk’s office is open. The privilege of using ECF will be suspended or revoked
without further proceedings if its use is abused through the filing of improper
papers, frivolous motions, or otherwise.
As information, after successful registration, the plaintiff will receive a
notice of electronic filing (NEF) email when a paper is filed in the case. An NEF
email will include a hyperlink to view the filing 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. After the hyperlink expires, the plaintiff may view
the filing by accessing PACER (which may require a fee) or by using a
public-access terminal in the clerk’s office. To avoid incurring fees, the plaintiff
should print or save the filing when using the one free look.
3.
The parties are reminded that they must comply with the district judge’s
standing order entered on April 2, 2026 (requiring all filings to include a
certificate about the use of generative artificial intelligence), and the plaintiff
is reminded that she must comply with Local Rule 1.09 (requiring “Unopposed”
in the title of an unopposed motion). The standing order
(www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-berger-standing-
order-on-al.pdf) and Local Rules (www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/flmd-
amended-local-rules-effective-november-01-2025.pdf) are available on the
court’s website.
Ordered in Jacksonville, Florida, on July 17, 2026.
SG Patricia D. Barksdale
United States Magistrate Judge
Attachment:
Non-Attorney E-File Registration
Copy to:
Anoda Phyllis Kendrick Carter (by U.S. Mail and email)
8634 Longford Dr.
Jacksonville, FL 32244
carteratlamoe@gmail.com