DARIEN MAYE
v.
WALMART, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied several of the plaintiff's motions as moot or without prejudice, but granted electronic notification for filings.
[1] A pro se litigant is subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules of court and cannot disregard procedural requirements applicable to represented parti…
[2] Electronic filing authorization for unrepresented parties in federal court is typically denied absent a showing of good cause or extenuating circumstances.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a pro se litigant 'is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.'”
Court cited Moon v. Newsome in support of holding that pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules.
The pro se plaintiff filed multiple motions, including applications to proceed in forma pauperis and requests for electronic filing and courthouse acc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Local Rule 3.01(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
Case No: 6:25-cv-1854-PGB-LHP
ORDER (And Direction to the Clerk)
Plaintiff Darien Maye, proceeding pro se, has filed several motions, each of which have been referred to the undersigned. None of the motions have been responded to, as Defendant has not yet been served nor appeared in this case. Upon consideration, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's September 25, 2025 Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Costs (Long Form), which has been construed as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3), is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff filed a subsequent Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) on November 6, 2025 (Doc. No. 10).
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Status Update and Request for Ruling on Pending Motion (Doc. No. 9), and Plaintiff's Motion to Rule on Pending Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 11), both of which seek updates and/or a ruling on Plaintiff's September 25, 2025 Application (Doc. No. 3), are also DENIED as moot. The Court is aware of Plaintiff's November 6, 2025 Application (Doc. No. 10) and will rule on the Application in due course.
3. Plaintiff's November 6, 2025 Application (Doc. No. 10) includes the full names of minor children, which does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(3). See id. at 3. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to redact from the November 6, 2025 Application the full names of the minor children (Doc. No. 10, at 3).
4. The Motion for Leave to File Documents Electronically (Doc. No. 7) is DENIED without prejudice. First, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(b). See generally Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (a pro se litigant "is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989). 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. Doc. No. 7.
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, [email protected], and ensure that Plaintiff receives Notices of Electronic Filings.
5. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Bring Electronic Devices into Federal Courthouse (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED without prejudice. Not only does the motion fail to comply with Local Rule 3.01(b), but Plaintiff fails to provide any argument to support his request beyond a conclusory assertion that allowing devices will "facilitate efficient participation in any scheduled hearings and ensure full access to relevant materials." Doc. No. 8, at 1. This explanation is both speculative and conclusory, and does not support a blanket authorization for Plaintiff to bring electronic devices into the Courthouse, particularly when at present no hearings are set. Should Plaintiff have a specific need to bring an electronic device(s) into the courthouse for a specific proceeding, Plaintiff may renew his request at that time. See also Local Rule 7.02.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 20, 2025.
Uslis Heran Price
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moon v. Lanson Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Nathansen v. City of Ocala (M.D. Fla. 2026)
- Crockett v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 2025 WL 2 (M.D. Fla. 2025)
- Ryals v. United States Attorney General, 2023 WL 3453560 (M.D. Fla. 2025)