Oliver v. County of Chatham et al
ORDER denying 7 Motion for leave to file through the Courts CM/ECF program. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 6/13/17. (wwp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COUNTY OF CHATHAM, et al.,
Plaintiff Anthony Oliver, proceeding pro se in this civil rights
action, requests electronic filing and notification access through the
Court’s Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF)
system. Doc. 7. Pro se plaintiffs are unable to use this system absent
court authorization, which is sparingly granted. Having reviewed the
motion and considered the circumstances, the Court does not find good
cause exists to allow plaintiff CM/ECF access. Oliver may prosecute
this lawsuit via the U.S. Mail and by accessing public filings through
See www.pacer.gov (Public Access to Court Electronic
Oliver is reminded that litigants have a duty to actively monitor
the docket, Yeschick v. Mineta, 675 F.3d 622, 629-30 (6th Cir. 2012),
and he must participate fully, complying with both the Local Rules and
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296,
1304 (11th Cir. 2002) (“Despite construction leniency afforded pro se
litigants, we nevertheless have required them to conform to procedural
rules.”); Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (a pro se
litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court including the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); GJR Investments v. County of
Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (the leniency to
which pro se litigants are entitled “does not give a court license to serve
as de facto counsel for a party . . . or to rewrite an otherwise deficient
pleading in order to sustain an action.”); see also S.D. Ga. L. R.
(available at http://www.gasd.uscourts.gov/lr/lr1.htm); Fed. R. Civ. P.
(available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp).
SO ORDERED, this
13th day of June, 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?