UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

BENJAMIN JOSEPH LIGERI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:25-cv-2119-AGM-LHP

AMAZON.COM, INC.,

Defendant

ORDER Before the Court is a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and to File Future Documents Via CM/ECF, filed by Plaintiff, who appears pro se. Doc. No. 22. By the motion, Plaintiff seeks leave of Court to file several documents: an amended complaint and related exhibits, a corrected motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, and a supporting declaration. See Doc. Nos. 22-1 through 22-25. Plaintiff also requests access to e-filing via CM/ECF. Doc. No. 22. On review, the motion will be DENIED without prejudice. First, the motion does not comply with the conferral requirements of Local Rule 3.01(g). Second, the motion does not comply with Local Rule 3.01(b) because it does not include a memorandum of legal authority in support. See also Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. 1989) (a pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and

rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”), cert. denied,

(1989). The Court also notes that the deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended

complaint expired on November 30, 2025, and the instant motion was not filed until December 15, 2025. See Doc. Nos. 15, 22. Thus, Plaintiff must demonstrate excusable neglect for failure to comply with the November 30, 2025 deadline, which is not addressed in the present motion. See Doc. No. 15; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).

And given that there is no current operative complaint, there does not appear to be a basis for the renewed motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction at this time. See also Doc. No. 20.1 Insofar as Plaintiff requests access to

filing via CM/ECF, “[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

1 Even if there were an operative complaint, it is unclear why leave of Court would be required. omitted). Here, Plaintiff makes no such showing, merely noting delays with filings and his experience with PACER. Doc. No. 22. For these reasons, the motion (Doc. No. 22) is DENIED without prejudice. In any renewed motion, Plaintiff must support, by argument and citation to legal authority, each of the forms of relief he seeks. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on December 19, 2025.

LESLIE 3 AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties