UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 24-cv-20381-BLOOM/Lett

JOHN MONTFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR., et al.,

Defendant. ________________________________/

OMNIBUS ORDER

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. 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-2038 1-BLOOM/Lett

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on December 4, 2025.

BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: John Montford

Terrace Miami, FL 33056