MICHAEL JAMES LONGS BEY
v.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, ET AL.
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.
Pro se plaintiff Michael James Longs Bey requested access to the court's electronic filing system (CM/ECF). The court denied his motion, finding that he failed to demonstrate entitlement to an exemption from the general rule requiring pro se litigants to file paper documents, as alternative methods like mail or hand delivery remain available.
The court held that Mr. Bey's motion for electronic filing access is denied. A pro se litigant seeking CM/ECF access must demonstrate that an exemption is necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and promote access to information, which Mr. Bey failed to do. The availability of alternative filing methods (mail or hand delivery) means there is no legal barrier to his participation.
“a pro se litigant seeking CM/ECF access must "demonstrate[ ] that an exemption [to the general rule] is necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote access to information"”
Establishes the legal standard for pro se litigants requesting electronic filing access
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael James Longs Bey is a pro se plaintiff in a case against Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. He filed a motion requesting access to the court…
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.
Pro se plaintiff Michael James Longs Bey requests access to the court's electronic filing system. (Doc. 9). Mr. Bey fails to establish entitlement to an exemption from the general rule that pro se litigants must file paper documents with the court. See Ogilvie v. Millsaps, No. 8:15-CV-2477-T-36JSS, 2015 WL 6688343, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2015) (observing that a pro se litigant seeking CM/ECF access must “demonstrate[] that an exemption [to the general rule] is necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote access to information”). As another order in this District recently explained, the discontinuation of the web portal “does not constitute a legal barrier to participation” given that a litigant may still "file documents through the mail
1
or by hand delivery to the clerk's office.” Sheets v. Pribble, No. 2:24-CV-958- JES-KCD, 2025 WL 2106679, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2025).
Accordingly, Mr. Bey's motion for electronic filing access (Doc. 9) is DENIED. He may mail hard copies of his filings to the Clerk of the Court or submit them in person at the courthouse.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 17, 2025.
Amanda Arnold Samsone AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crockett v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 2025 WL 2 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…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"…
-
Bey v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriff's Off. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…he court’s electronic filing system. (Doc. 9). Mr. Bey fails to establish entitlement to an exemption from the general rule that pro se litigants must file paper documents with the court. See Ogilvie v. Millsaps, No. 8:15-CV-2477-T-36JSS, 2015 WL 6688343, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2015) (observing that a pro se litigant seeking CM/ECF access must “demonstrate[ ] that an exemption [to the general rule] is necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote access to information”). As another order…1 / 2
-
Gillespie v. Wilcox (M.D. Fla. 2025)…awyers must submit filings in person, by U.S. Mail, or by other delivery service.").¹ The Middle District of Florida “discontinued its web portal to realign resources and ensure continued efficiency.” See Sheets v. Pribble, No. 2:24-cv- 958-JES-KCD, 2025 WL 2106679, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2025). In light of the Court's recent decision to discontinue its web portal services to litigants without lawyers, Plaintiff's request to file documents electronically through the Court's web portal is denied. As to CM/E…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bey v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriff's Off. (M.D. Fla. 2025)