GILLESPIE

v.

WESLEY WILCOX, MARION COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS

This cause comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff's Motion to E-File submitted on August 7, 2025. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff moves for electronic filing privileges to access and use the Court's web portal, or alternatively, the Case Management/Electronic Filing System ("CM/ECF"). (Id. at pp. 1-2). He requests authorization to file documents electronically through the Court's web portal or CM/ECF for the following reasons: his “income is low” and he "relies on Social Security retirement income to survive”; “[t]he added cost of using U.S. Mail or other delivery service is prohibitive”; he “currently does not drive”; “[t]he Court, post office, and mailing services[] are not within walking distance to where [he] works and lives"; "[t]he cost of Lyft or other car service or taxi is prohibitive”; “[t]here is no viable public transportation"; and "[e]-filing provides extended hours to file, while hand-delivery is essentially only an option when the court is open.” (Id.). Plaintiff notes that he has an existing PACER account, where he can monitor the docket. (Id. at p. 1).

Previously, the Court operated a web portal that allowed pro se litigants to file documents electronically. That service has now ended. See Electronic Document Submission

Web Portal for the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (“Effective Friday, August 1, [2025], litigants without lawyers will not be permitted to submit filings through the court's web portal. Instead, litigants without lawyers 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/ECF eligibility, pursuant to the Court's Administrative Procedures for Electronic Filing, "[a]bsent a court order, a pro se litigant is not permitted to file documents in CM/ECF." See Administrative Procedures for Electronic Filing (Aug. 1, 2025) for the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida. “Pro se litigants are generally denied access to electronic filing unless extenuating circumstances exist to justify waiving CM/ECF procedures." See Huminski v. Vermont, No. 2:13-cv-692-FTM-29, 2014 WL 169848, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2014); 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"). In this instance, Plaintiff has not shown any extenuating circumstances or good cause under the circumstances presented to authorize his access to CM/ECF. Thus, Plaintiff's request for authorization to access and file documents in CM/ECF is denied.

Accordingly, upon due consideration, Plaintiff's Motion to E-File (Doc. 6) is

DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on August 11, 2025.

PHILIP R. LAMMENS

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

[fn 1]: https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/electronic-document-submission-web-portal.