MITCHEM-GREEN
v.
HARRIS
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.
This is an interlocutory order denying a pro se litigant's motion to participate in electronic filing (CM/ECF) and partially denying a related motion for miscellaneous relief. The court held that absent good cause or extenuating circumstances, pro se parties are not permitted to file electronically in this district.
Pro se litigants are not permitted to file documents in CM/ECF absent a court order, which is generally unavailable in this district unless the pro se party makes a showing of good cause or extenuating circumstances. The motion to participate in electronic filing was denied because no such showing was made.
[1] A pro se litigant is not permitted to file documents in CM/ECF absent a court order.
[2] A court order permitting a pro se litigant to file documents in CM/ECF is generally unavailable unless the pro se party makes a showing of good cause or extenuating circu…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Absent a court order, a pro se litigant is not permitted to file documents in CM/ECF.”
Establishes the baseline rule that pro se parties cannot use electronic filing without court authorization.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTracie Mitchem-Green, a pro se litigant in a civil case against Scott Harris and others, filed two motions: one requesting permission to participate i…
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 Pro Se Litigant Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on two motions filed by Petitioner, Tracie Mitchem-Green (“Petitioner"): (i) a Motion to Participate in Electronic Filing ("Motion to Participate"), Doc. 3; and (ii) a Motion for Leave to Permit Typography with Previous Filings and Request to Grant Electronic Filing Request ("Motion for Miscellaneous Relief”), Doc. 4.
The Motion to Participate is denied. The Motion to Participate asserts no basis-let alone one supplying good cause out of the ordinary—for the requested relief. See Gerow v. Blackwell, No. 8:24-cv-2280-KKM-NHA, 2024 WL 4679030, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2024) (“Absent a court order, a pro se litigant is not permitted to file documents in CM/ECF.' Such an order is generally unavailable in this district unless 'the pro se party makes a showing of good cause or extenuating circumstances justifying such relief.”) (citations omitted); see also McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic Found.
Police Dep't, 455 F. App’x 874, 878 (11th Cir. 2011);¹ Gillespie v. Wilcox, No. 5:25-cv- 486-SPC-PRL, 2025 WL 2306739, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2025); Rothschild v. Anywhere Advisors LLC, No. 2:24-cv-304-SPC-KCD, 2024 WL 2749245, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 29, 2024). Similarly, the Motion for Miscellaneous Relief is denied in part to the extent it requests the Court grant the Motion to Participate.
The Motion for Miscellaneous Relief is granted in part to the limited extent that the Court will not strike prior filings of Petitioner that do not comply with the typography requirements of Local Rule 1.08. Petitioner is directed to carefully review and comply with the Local Rules, however, and is cautioned that future noncompliant filings may be summarily rejected.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on August 28, 2025.
Samuel J. Horovitz United States Magistrate Judge
Copies to: Pro Se party
[fn 1]: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent; however, they may be cited when persuasive on a particular point. See United States v. Futrell, 209 F. 3d 1286, 1289-90 (11th Cir. 2000); 11th Cir. R. 36-2.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2000)
- René Martinez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2025)