WILLIAMS
v.
JACKSONVILLE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
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 held that the pro se plaintiffs' motion was due to be denied without prejudice because it failed to comply with multiple local and federal procedural rules.
Pro se plaintiffs filed a motion that did not comply with local rules regarding typography, good faith conferral with opposing counsel, and federal ru…
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 Pro Se Litigant Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Notice and Motion to Request Judge and Trial and/or Mediation in the US Middle District Jacksonville Division Civil Court Claim for Damages (Monetary) (Doc. 5; Motion), filed October 13, 2021. Having reviewed the Motion, the Court finds that the Motion is due to be denied without prejudice as it does not comply with Rule 1.08(a) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)), Rule 3.01(g) of the Local Rules, or Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules). While pro se filings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney, Wright v. Newsome, 795 F. 2d 964, 967 (11th Cir. 1986), the pro se litigant is still required to “conform to procedural rules.” Riley v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 222 F. App’x 897, 898 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Loren v. Sasser, 309 F. 3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002)).1 The Motion does not comply with the new typography requirements set forth in the recently amended Local
Rules, which took effect on February1, 2021. See Local Rule 1.08(a)-(b). Rule 1.08 requires that the main text of filings be at least 13-point font and doublespaced. Id. The Motion is single-spaced and has a small font. In addition, it appears that Plaintiffs failed to provide certification under
Local Rule 3.01(g), confirming that they conferred with Defendant in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the Motion and advising the Court whether Defendant agrees to the relief requested. Finally, the Motion does not comply with Rule 11, which requires the following: Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed . . . by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. . . . The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiffs do not include their addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers on the Motion, nor does that information appear on the Court docket.
Plaintiffs’ request. See Local Rule 3.01(a). In addition, any renewed motion must comply with Local Rule 3.01(g), (1) certifying that Plaintiffs have conferred with opposing counsel, (2) indicating whether counsel agree on the resolution of the Motion, and (3) if the Motion is opposed, explaining the means by which the conference occurred. Plaintiffs also must sign2 the renewed motion and include their addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers as required by Rule
11.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Notice and Motion (Doc. 5) is DENIED without prejudice.
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge
1¢30 Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2000)
- Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Wright v. Lanson Newsome, 795 F.2d 964 (11th Cir. 1986)