FALLER II
v.
BEASLEY BROADCAST GROUP, INC.
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.
Pro se plaintiff James Stuart Faller II sued a radio host and media affiliate for slander and libel. The district court denied his motion for access to the Court's electronic filing system (CM/ECF), finding no extenuating circumstances justified waiving normal procedures.
The motion for access to the Court's electronic filing system is denied. Pro se litigants are generally denied CM/ECF access unless extenuating circumstances exist to justify waiving standard procedures. The plaintiff's self-proclaimed legal expertise and arguments about judicial efficiency do not constitute extenuating circumstances.
“Pro se litigants are generally denied access to electronic filing unless extenuating circumstances exist to justify waiving CM/ECF procedures.”
Establishes the governing 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 intelligencePro se Plaintiff James Stuart Faller II filed suit against Defendant Austin Rhodes (a radio host) and Defendant Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. (a local…
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 Extenuating Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
Pro se Plaintiff James Stuart Faller, II sues a radio host (Defendant Rhodes) and its local media affiliate (Defendant Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc.) for slander and libel. (Doc. 1.) Now before the Court is Plaintiffs motion for access to the Court's electronic filing system. (Doc. 5.)
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. Although Plaintiff purports to be a “highly experienced legal expert," that does not justify departing from the Court's normal procedures.
And to the extent Plaintiff believes electronic filing will save judicial resources, he can submit documents through the Web Portal on the Court's website at https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/electronic-document-submission-web-portal.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 2, 2024.
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
Copies: All Parties of Record