LUCOMBE
v.
HAWK HOMES L.L.C.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a pro se litigant must show good cause or extenuating circumstances to be permitted to file electronically via CM/ECF.
The pro se plaintiff requested permission to file documents electronically, citing efficiency and cost savings. The court noted that pro se litigants …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pacer (Public Access To Court Electronic Records) cases and more on FLexlaw
The pro se plaintiff Nigel Lucombe requests permission to file electronically. Doc. 2. Lucombe explains that filing electronically is quicker, cheaper, and more efficient than filing documents in person at the courthouse. Doc. 2 at 2.
"Absent a court order, a pro se litigant is not permitted to file documents in CM/ECF.” Administrative Procedures for Electronic Filing (M.D. Fla. Apr. 1, 2024); see Local Rule 1.01(c) (“By administrative order, the court can prescribe procedures governing electronic filing."). In this district, permission to file electronically typically occurs only if the pro se party shows “good cause” or "extenuating circumstances.” Gerow v. Blackwell, No: 8:24-cv-02280-KKM-NHA, 2024 WL 4679030, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2024) (quoting Hooker v. Wilkie, No. 8:20- cv-1248-T-02CPT, 2020 WL 6947482, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jun. 4, 2020)).
Lucombe describes nothing constituting good cause or an extenuating circumstance. Gerow, 2024 WL 4679030, at *1. Lucombe describes no unusual burden impacting his filing of documents. See Cromity v. City of Orlando, No: 6:24-cv- 1688-CEM-DCI, 2025 WL 435901, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2025). Rather, Lucombe's burden is common to all pro se parties and, absent more, fails to justify allowing CM/ECF access. Gerow, 2024 WL 4679030, at *1.
A pro se party may file documents electronically through the Court's web portal. Id. If Lucombe uses the web portal, he need not submit his filings in person or through the U.S. Mail. Id. The portal is available on the Court's website at https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/electronic-document-submission-web-portal. Lucombe may continue to use PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) to view and print the documents in this case.* Accordingly, Lucombe's motion is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
ORDERED on this 18th day of April, 2025.
LINDSAY S. GRIFFIN
United States Magistrate Judge
* Lucombe says that he has registered for the “Florida Courts E-Filing Portal (pacer.uscourts.gov/file-case) and has the technical capabilities to file documents electronically." Doc. 2 at 1. Lucombe may use his PACER account to review and print case documents once filed. PACER sets a standard rate of $0.10 per page for access to court documents. See United States Courts, Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule (Dec. 31, 2019), https://www.uscourts.gov/servicesforms/fees/electronic-public-access-fee-schedule. The Court may grant an exception to the PACER fee schedule to indigent litigants upon demonstration that such an exemption is applicable. Lucombe has not done so here.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nathansen v. City of Ocala (M.D. Fla. 2026)
- Crockett v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 2025 WL 2 (M.D. Fla. 2025)
- René Martinez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2025)