GIBSON
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

M.D. Fla. | 2024-10-21
No. 2:24-cv-952
2024 FFL 26385 District Court, M.D. Florida (2024)

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.

Synopsis

Pro se plaintiff Raymond Gibson moved for access to the Court's electronic filing system (CM/ECF). The District Court denied the motion, finding no extenuating circumstances to justify waiving standard CM/ECF procedures and noting that the plaintiff already has access to electronic filing through the Court's Web Portal.


Holding

Pro se litigants are generally denied access to electronic filing unless extenuating circumstances exist. Here, the plaintiff presented no extenuating circumstances, so his motion for CM/ECF access is denied. The plaintiff already has access to electronic filing through the Court's Web Portal.


Key Quotes

“Pro se litigants are generally denied access to electronic filing unless extenuating circumstances exist to justify waiving CM/ECF procedures.”

Establishes the governing legal standard for CM/ECF access by pro se litigants

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Raymond Gibson is proceeding as a pro se litigant in a case against Bank of America, N.A. He filed a motion requesting access to the Court's electroni…

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.

Opinion of the Court

Plaintiff Raymond Gibson, proceeding without a lawyer, moves for access to the Court's electronic filing system. (Doc. 11.) The motion is DENIED. “Pro se litigants are generally denied access to electronic filing unless extenuating circumstances exist to justify waiving CM/ECF procedures.” Huminski v. Vermont, No. 2:13-cv-692-FtM-29, 2014 WL 169848, *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2014); see also McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. Police Dep't, 455 F. App'x 874, 878 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of CM/ECF access for pro se litigants). No extenuating circumstances have been shown (or even argued) here. To the extent Plaintiff believes electronic filing will help him access documents in the case, he can already submit documents electronically through the Web Portal on the Court's website at https://www.flmd. uscourts.gov/electronic-document-submission-web-portal. In short, the

functionality Plaintiff seeks is already available through the Court's available resources.

ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 21, 2024.

Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge

Copies: All Parties of Record

2


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw