Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03517/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03517-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

TAMPA DIVISION 

 

 

ERIC GEROW,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:24-cv-02280-KKM-NHA

TOM BLACKWELL, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

ORDER 

Eric Gerow moves for reconsideration (Doc. 6) of the Court’s order (Doc. 4) 

denying his motion for CM/ECF access (Doc. 3). I deny that motion.

“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.”). Such an order is generally unavailable in this district 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, 2020 WL 6947482, at *1 (M.D. Fla. 

June 4, 2020). The Eleventh Circuit has routinely upheld this district’s practice of denying 

CM/ECF access to pro se litigants absent a showing of good cause. See, e.g., Jain v. Myers, 

Case 2:24-cv-03517-KML Document 7 Filed 11/05/24 Page 1 of 3
2

No. 20-11908, 2024 WL 46654, at *6 (11th Cir. Jan. 4, 2024) (per curiam), cert. denied, 

No. 24-168, 2024 WL 4529815 (U.S. Oct. 21, 2024); Dahl v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway 

Safety & Motor Vehicles, No. 21-14499, 2022 WL 17076734, at *4 (11th Cir. Nov. 18, 

2022) (per curiam); McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. Police Dep’t, 455 F. App’x 874, 

878 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

Gerow has not shown that his case is out of the ordinary. The reasons he claims that 

he needs electronic filing—the cost of printing, the cost of postage, the additional time 

required to file paper documents, and the cost of PACER access—are common to all pro 

se litigants who file paper documents. If these burdens were enough to justify CM/ECF 

access, the exception would swallow the rule. 

Even still, the burdens Gerow identifies are not so great as he makes them out to 

be. For one, Gerow complains that filing and notice by mail deprive him of the time he is 

allotted to respond to a filing. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure already account for 

this issue. Parties receiving notice by mail have three days added to their deadlines. FED.

R. CIV. P. 6(d). For another, the Middle District allows pro se litigants to submit filings 

to the clerk’s office electronically (though without direct access to CM/ECF) through the 

Electronic Document Submission Web Portal. See M.D. Fla, Electronic Document 

Submission Web Portal (available at https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/electronicdocument-submission-web-portal); see also Rothschild v. Anywhere Advisors LLC, 

Case 2:24-cv-03517-KML Document 7 Filed 11/05/24 Page 2 of 3
3

No. 2:24-CV-304-SPC-KCD, 2024 WL 2749245, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 29, 2024). 

Gerow may therefore submit filings to the clerk’s office without either using the United 

States Postal Service or visiting the clerk’s office in person. As for the cost of PACER 

access, federal courts are empowered to grant exceptions to PACER’s fee schedule for 

indigent litigants. See U.S. Courts, Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule (Dec. 31, 2019) 

(available at https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/electronic-public-access-feeschedule); see also Ogilvie v. Millsaps, No. 8:15-CV-2477-T-36JSS, 2015 WL 6688343, 

at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2015). Yet Gerow has not claimed that he is entitled to such an 

exception.

Because Gerow has not shown good cause or extenuating circumstances justifying 

access to CM/ECF, his motion for reconsideration (Doc. 6) is DENIED.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 5, 2024. 

Case 2:24-cv-03517-KML Document 7 Filed 11/05/24 Page 3 of 3