Mitchem-Green v. Harris

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION TRACIE MITCHEM-GREEN, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 3:25-cv-964-MMH-SJH SCOTT HARRIS, et al., Respondents. ________________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on two motions filed by Petitioner, Tracie Mitchem-Green (“Petitioner”): (i) a Motion to Participate in Electronic Filing (“Motion to Participate”), Doc. 3; and (ii) a Motion for Leave to Permit Typography with Previous Filings and Request to Grant Electronic Filing Request (“Motion for Miscellaneous Relief”), Doc. 4.

The Motion to Participate is denied. The Motion to Participate asserts no basis—let alone one supplying good cause out of the ordinary—for the requested relief.

See Gerow v. Blackwell, No. 8:24-cv-2280-KKM-NHA, 2024 WL 4679030, at *1 (M.D.

Fla. Nov. 5, 2024) (“‘Absent a court order, a pro se litigant is not permitted to file documents in CM/ECF.’ Such an order is generally unavailable in this district unless ‘the pro se party makes a showing of good cause or extenuating circumstances justifying such relief.’”) (citations omitted); see also McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic Found.

Police Dep’t, 455 F. App’x 874, 878 (11th Cir. 2011);! Gillespie v. Wilcox, No. 5:25-cv- 486-SPC-PRL, 2025 WL 2306739, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2025); Rothschild v. Anywhere Advisors LLC, No. 2:24-cv-304-SPC-KCD, 2024 WL 2749245, at *1 (M.D.

Fla. May 29, 2024). Similarly, the Motion for Miscellaneous Relief is denied in part to the extent it requests the Court grant the Motion to Participate.

The Motion for Miscellaneous Relief is granted in part to the limited extent that the Court will not strike prior filings of Petitioner that do not comply with the typography requirements of Local Rule 1.08. Petitioner is directed to carefully review and comply with the Local Rules, however, and is cautioned that future noncompliant filings may be summarily rejected.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on August 28, 2025.

[Z J. Horovitz United States Magistrate Judge Copies to: Pro Se party ' Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent; however, they may be cited when persuasive on a particular point. See United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1289-90 (11th Cir. 2000); 11th Cir. R. 36-2.