SHULTZ
v.
MUELLER
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.
Plaintiff Shultz, a pro se litigant, moved to seal or redact references to prior detention in the case record. The court denied the motion without prejudice for failure to comply with local court rules and insufficient specificity regarding what information should be sealed.
The motion was denied without prejudice because it failed to include a memorandum of legal authority as required by Local Rule 3.01(a), did not comply with Local Rule 1.11 requirements for motions to seal, and failed to identify specific information in the record that Plaintiff sought to have sealed.
“a pro se litigant "is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"”
Establishes that pro se litigants must comply with the same procedural rules as represented parties
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Shultz filed a motion to seal or redact portions of the case record that reference a previously dismissed or sealed incident. However, Plain…
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 Memorandum Of Legal Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal or Redact References to Prior Detention. Doc. No. 3. On review, the motion fails to comply with the Court’s Local Rules because it does not include a memorandum of legal authority as required by Local Rule 3.01(a) and does not comply with the requirements for a motion to seal pursuant to Local Rule 1.11. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989) (a pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”). Moreover, although Plaintiff mentions “portions of the case record that reference a previously dismissed or sealed incident,” Plaintiff does not identify where in the record such information exists. Accordingly, the motion (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed motion must comply with the Local Rules, identify the specific information in the record that Plaintiff wishes to be sealed, and provide legal authority demonstrating that sealing such information is appropriate under governing law. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 27, 2025.
[ inlay ie ayn Kica
LESLIE AN 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)
- Flores-Dominguez v. United States, 493 U.S. 863 (U.S. 1989)