United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 2024

Everlake Life Insurance Company v. Dume

Everlake Life Insurance Company v. Dume
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · Decided August 26, 2024
Everlake Life Insurance Company v. Dume

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION EVERLAKE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-310-SPC-KCD ANTHONY DUME, DENISE CONLEY, JOESPH SMITH, and YVETTE SEWELL, Defendants. / ORDER 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.

Le CG. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge Copies: All Parties of Record

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.