EVERLAKE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
DUME
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.
The court denied the pro se defendant's motion for access to the electronic filing system and clarified service requirements for his crossclaim.
A pro se defendant moved for access to the court's electronic filing system and to continue as a crossclaim plaintiff. The court noted that pro se lit…
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 Summons cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is pro se Defendant Anthony Dume's motion for access to the Court's electronic filing system. (Doc. 44.) 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 here. As a pro se party, Dume can receive notices of electronic filing to his email, which he has provided. Indeed, the record shows that Dume is already receiving notices by email. And Dume is filing documents through the Court's Electronic Document Submission Portal. So further electronic access appears unnecessary.
Dume also asks “to continue as crossclaim Plaintiff.” (Doc. 44 at 2.) There is no issue with Dume proceeding pro se on the crossclaim against Denise Conley, Yvette Sewell, and Joseph Smith (Doc. 36), but it does not appear that the crossclaim has been served on these parties. The certificate of service states that the crossclaim was provided to all parties “via PACER/email.” (Doc. 36 at 11.) But cross-defendants Conley and Sewell are pro se, and Smith has not yet appeared, so they do not have access to the Court's electronic filing system. Dume may serve Conley and Sewell with the crossclaim “by mailing it to the person's last known address in which service is complete upon mailing." Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). But since Smith has not yet appeared, he must be served under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. See Tiger v. Gator's Dockside of Dr. Phillips, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-1935-Orl-CEM-DCI, 2019 WL 13246536, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 26, 2019). To serve Smith, Dume must obtain a summons from the Clerk. Within 21 days of serving the cross-defendants, Dume must file a proof of service for each. See Local Rule 1.10(a).
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 26, 2024.
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Copies: All Parties of Record