CLARK

v.

HAGER

1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. respond except to remind Plaintiffs—for the third time—they must comply with all procedural rules. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 103 (2006); (Docs. 3 at 3; 8 at 1-2).2 That includes all Local Rules, like Local Rule 1.10 (which demands plaintiff move for clerk’s default within a set time). If Plaintiffs expect lenient deadlines because they are pro se, federal courts offer no such treatment. E.g., Wayne v. Jarvis, 197 F. 3d 1098, 1104 (11th Cir. 1999) (“Liberal construction does not mean liberal deadlines.”), overruled on other grounds by Manders v. Lee, 338 F. 3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003). With that addressed, the Court liberally construes the Motion. After a deadline expires, a “court may, for good cause, extend the time” if the movant shows “excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). It appears one or both Plaintiffs hired a lawyer (or are doing so). And Plaintiffs had trouble navigating the Court’s website to find some forms. Finally, Plaintiffs moved for clerk’s default. (Docs. 14; 15). The Court finds good cause and excusable neglect. So it grants the Motion and reopens the case. That said, the Court once again strikes Plaintiffs’ Notices of Related Action. As the Court instructed, “The parties” must “jointly complete and file” a notice. (Doc. 8 at 1 (quoting Doc. 4 at 2)). Joint means all parties together—

2 See also McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“While we have insisted that the pleadings prepared by prisoners who do not have access to counsel be liberally construed, . . . we have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.”). including Defendant Kristy Hager. Again, Plaintiffs individual Notices are not joint. They should review all Orders the Court issues. One explained: a joint notice should “be filed when filing the Uniform Case Management Report.” (Doc. 4 at 2). That Report is due “within FORTY (40) DAYS after any defendant appears.” (Doc. 4 at 2). As with any pro se party, the Court keeps encouraging Plaintiffs to get an attorney or—at a minimum—consult the District’s Guide for Proceeding Without a Lawyer.3 If Plaintiffs hired a lawyer, she should represent them and file motions or other papers on Plaintiffs’ behalf. According to Plaintiffs, their counsel needs “a reasonable time to digest” the pleadings. (Doc. 13 at 4). But any lawyer should be able to “digest” a three-count Complaint and fifteendocket-entry case in little to no time. The Court expects any counsel (if retained) to file a notice of appearance and represent Plaintiffs. Accordingly, it is now

3 Available at, https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/flmd-guide-forproceeding-without-a-lawyer.pdf. 3. Plaintiffs’ Notices of Related Cases (Docs. 9; 10) are STRUCK. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on March 30, 2022.