UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

JOSHUA CROCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-1234-AGM-LHP

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,

Defendant

ORDER (And Direction to Clerk of Court)

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CM/ECF ACCESS (Doc. No. 40) FILED: July 31, 2025

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff Joshua Crockett, proceeding pro se, requests access to the Court’s CM/ECF electronic docketing system. Doc. No. 40. Upon review, the motion is due to be denied for two reasons. First, the motion fails to comply with the conferral requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g)(3). Second, “[w]hile an unrepresented individual may obtain the Court’s permission to file his submissions electronically using the CM/ECF system, such

authorization is typically denied unless the pro se party makes a showing of good cause or extenuating circumstances justifying such relief.” Hooker v. Wilkie, No. 8:20-cv-1248-T-02CPT,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 4, 2020) (citations omitted).

Here, Plaintiff makes no such showing. The basis for Plaintiff’s request is that he suffers prejudice as a pro se litigant through “unnecessary delays and excessive costs” due to his living in Arizona, the mailing of his filings, and the loss

of access to the Court’s web portal, and that Defendants have engaged in various procedural violations. Doc. No. 40, at 1-4. With respect to the concerns regarding costs and delays, these concerns are common to all pro se litigants who file paper documents, and if these burdens were enough to justify CM/ECF access, the

exception would swallow the rule. See, e.g., Pouyeh v. Pub. Health Tr. of Jackson Health Sys., No. 24-10988,

, at *6–7 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2025) (denial of CM/ECF access to plaintiff living overseas did not violate right of access to the

courts because right of access is “neither absolute nor conditional”); Clifft v. Sch. Dist. of Lee Cnty., No. 2:25-cv-345-JES-DNF,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 28, 2025), reconsideration denied, No. 2:25-cv-345-JES-DNF,

(M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2025) (affirming denial of CM/ECF access to pro se litigants, finding that unpredictable delays and mail delivery risks, complexity of the case, and inability to obtain legal counsel did not rise to the level necessary to justify CM/ECF access);

Sheets v. Pribble, No. 2:24-cv-958-JES-KCD,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2025) (denying motion for CM/ECF access and explaining that discontinuation of the Court’s web portal “does not constitute a legal barrier to participation” given that a litigant may still “file documents through the mail”). In addition, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure already account for paper filings and add three (3) days to a party’s deadline when service is made by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). The concerns regarding Defendant’s purported procedural violations can also be

addressed either sua sponte by the Court or by the filing of an appropriate motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 40) is DENIED. That said, “the Court in its discretion may grant a pro se party permission to receive electronic notifications.” See Moore v. Adventist Health Sys. Sunbelt Healthcare Corp., No. 6:23-

cv-1163-PGB-DCI,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2023). The Court finds it appropriate to exercise such discretion here. See id.; see also Cromity v. City of Orlando, No. 6:24-cv-1688-CEM-DCI,

, at *1 (allowing service of

court documents on pro se party by email); Wilkins v. RCI, LLC, No. 6:23-cv-849-PGB- EJK,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2023) (same). Therefore, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to add Plaintiff’s email address to CM/ECF, [email protected], and ensure that Plaintiff receive Notices of Electronic Filings. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on December 8, 2025.

Oy □□□□ LESLIE AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

_4-