JOHN MONTFORD
v.
WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR., ET AL.
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 Plaintiff's motions for leave to file because they failed to meet the established requirements for such filings.
[1] A litigant subject to a restriction on filing must demonstrate compliance with all procedural prerequisites—including page limits, non-frivolousness explanations, and aff…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff John Montford, previously restricted from filing documents without attorney approval, filed several motions for leave to file. These motions…
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 Restricted Filer Status cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff John Montford's Motions for Leave to File, ECF Nos. [150], [151], [152], and [153]. The Court has carefully reviewed the Motions, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons discussed below, the Motions are denied.
On August 8, 2008, United States District Judge Marcia G. Cooke barred Plaintiff from filing any documents in this Court “unless signed by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court, or unless leave to file has been granted.” Montford v. All Supreme Court Justices, et al., No. 08-CV-21778, ECF No. 28 at 2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2008). Thereafter, on July 17, 2024, United States District Judge K. Michael Moore maintained Plaintiff's status as a restricted filer and enjoined him from any future filings in this Court unless signed by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court, or if leave to file is granted. The Court stated:
Any such future motions for leave to file: (1) shall not exceed two pages, (2) shall attach the proposed filing and explain why the proposed filing is not frivolous or an unsubstantiated attack on any previous order entered in this case, and, (3) shall certify, by affidavit and under penalty of perjury, that the proposed filing raises a new issue that has not already been rejected by the Court or the Eleventh Circuit.
Case No. 24-cv-20381-BLOOM/Lett
ECF No. [93].
The Motions fail to explain why the proposed filings are not frivolous or an unsubstantiated attack on previous orders entered in this case. Moreover, the Motions are not certified by affidavit and under penalty of perjury, that the proposed filings raise new issues not already rejected by the Court or the Eleventh Circuit as required by Judge Moore's previous order and reiterated in this Court's Omnibus Order. See ECF No. [136].
I. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Motions, ECF Nos. [150], [151], [152], and [153] are DENIED.
2. Plaintiff is ENJOINED from filing any future documents in this case, or any case within the Southern District of Florida, unless signed by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court, or unless leave to file has been granted. Any such future motions for leave to file: (1) shall not exceed two pages, (2) shall attach the proposed filing and explain why the proposed filing is not frivolous or an unsubstantiated attack on any previous order entered in this case, and, (3) shall certify, by affidavit and under penalty of perjury, that the proposed filing raises a new issue that has not already been rejected by the Court or the Eleventh Circuit.
3. The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED that any document received from Plaintiff John Montford (with the exception of motions for leave to file) shall be REJECTED unless signed by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court, or unless leave to file has been granted.
Case No. 24-cv-20381-BLOOM/Lett
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on December 4, 2025.
cc: John Montford 2241 NW 188 Terrace Miami, FL 33056