SHED
v.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES
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 granted in part the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file a second amended complaint, but denied his motion to file electronically.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an amended complaint that was struck as an impermissible shotgun pleading. He then moved for an extension to file …
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 Electronic Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff Bobby Shed, proceeding pro se, filed an Amended Complaint alleging various claims regarding retaliation and discrimination. (Doc. 15.) Because the complaint constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading, the Court struck it and directed Shed to file a second amended complaint by August 3, 2022. (Doc. 18.) The Court also denied his motion to file electronically. Shed now moves for an extension of time to file his second amended complaint. (Doc. 22.) Finding good cause, the Court grants his motion for an extension of time in part. He has until August 12, 2022, to file a second amended complaint. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2).
Shed also moves a second time to file electronically. (Doc. 23.) The general rule is that pro se litigants must file paper documents with the Court and must establish “that an exemption is necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote access to information.” See Ogilvie v. Millsaps, No. 8:15-CV-2477-T-36JSS, 2015 WL 6688343, at (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2015). Unlike his first motion, Shed’s second motion to file electronically includes reasons why filing electronically would be more convenient for him, including that electronic filing “should reduce costs associated with delivering documents to the Clerk’s Office.” But these reasons do not rise to the level of an unreasonable burden to justify an exemption. The Court notes that any member of the public can access electronic records of the federal courts by registering online with PACER. Finally, Shed moves for clarification regarding the Court’s order striking his amended complaint. He asks “[w]hich claims are without legal elements,” “[w]hich factual allegations are irrelevant,” and for “some examples of allegations that are vague and conclusory.” Although the Court may not provide legal advice, Shed is free to consult the Middle District’s resources for pro se litigants. See Litigants Without Lawyers, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/litigants-without-lawyers (last visited July 29, 2022). Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs motion for an extension to file his second amended complaint is
GRANTED-IN-PART.
a. By August 12, 2022, Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint consistent with the directives of this Order and in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 10(b). Failure to file a second amended complaint by this deadline will result in the dismissal of this action without further notice.
2. Plaintiff's second motion to file electronically (Doc. 23) is DENIED. 3. Plaintiffs motion for clarification (Doc. 24) is RESOLVED. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 29, 2022.