BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™
Downloaded From www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
SELL YOUR OWN TEMPLATES (help others get the justice that they deserve)
BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

[courtDistrict], [courtDivision]

[plfName]	)	Case No (LT)
Plaintiff	)	[caseNo]
)
v.	)
)
[defName]	)
Defendant	)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO UTILIZE ELECTRONIC FILING

Plaintiff, [plfName], on this [D] day of [MMMM] [YYYY], respectfully asks this Court to grant Plaintiff permission to file/retrieve [his/her] case documents electronically.

Key Points:

Grounds	equitable, greater good, not for sale, limited time

Grounds	save judicial resources; 14th amendment

Conferral	100% of served Defendants do not object to this request

Table of Contents:

Context	2nd Page
Motion	3rd Page
Certificates	10th Page
Exhibits	12th Page
Affidavits	18th Page

Background:	Plaintiff is a pro se litigant in this court

Problem:	Permission for pro se eFiling is by Court order only

Request:	Court gives Plaintiff permission to eFile Court papers

Local Rule 1.01(c) USFLMD | Electronic Filing

“By administrative order, the court can prescribe procedures governing electronic filing.”

Rule 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. | Scope

“[These rules] should be... administered... by the court... to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action...”

14th Amendment | US Constitution

“No state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws.”

Precedence

6:07-cv-06247-DGL-JWF	- USNYWD (3/23/10)

3:20-cv-00905-MMH-LLL	- USFLMD (11/6/20)

3:24-cv-00189-WWB-SJH	- USFLMD (4/2/24)

21-10847-HH	- USCA11 (3/23/21)

Federal courts have granted similar requests

Abbreviations:

DOAH	-	Division of Administrative Hearings (Florida)
JCUS	-	Judicial Conference of the United States
USCA11	-	US Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit
USFLMD	-	US District Court, Florida, Middle District
USNYWD	-	US District Court, New York, Western District

MOTION

Relevant History

PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) is a third-party service of the federal Judiciary; funded through user fees set by JCUS. It houses case dockets for federal district courts (including the docket for this Court).

This Court’s relationship with PACER, however, forbids electronic filing (“eFiling”) from non-attorney participants.

On-or-around [startDate], Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit against Defendant. [He/She] did so, notably, without an attorney (ie, pro se).

Soon thereafter Defendant made [his/her/its] appearance; doing so, notably, via attorney.

At all times material hereto, Plaintiff – as a pro se litigant – has not enjoyed the full privilege of electronic filing. A privilege, of course, that Defendant has [always] enjoyed. A privilege, crucially, that has affected this proceeding (on multiple occasions).

Standard for Review

Pursuant to Local Rule 1.01(c), this Court governs the procedures behind eFiling.

Although directly concerning PACER fees (instead of PACER eFiling), JCUS created a standard which courts can use when reviewing requests to use PACER [in an acceptable manner] (highlights added):

“that those seeking an exemption have demonstrated that an exemption is necessary in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to information... the user receiving the exemption must agree not to sell [or transfer] the data obtained... the exemption should be granted for a definite period of time [and] should be limited in scope.”

JCUS | USCourts.gov1/

In short, Plaintiff must show that:

granting eFiling is necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens;

granting eFiling will promote public access to information;

he will not sell/transfer the functionality obtained; and

functionality will only be needed for a specific time period.

Plaintiff can satisfy all four items, as follows.

Analysis

Quell an Unreasonable Burden

Plaintiff contends that this Court’s current eFiling prohibition is too costly (and thus unreasonable) for Plaintiff’s set of circumstances.

For starters, printing & shipping court papers is time consuming and costly.

Plaintiff’s printer cartridges cost $48 per 600 sheets

Plaintiff’s printer papers cost $11 per 600 sheets

$6 per 500 white sheets; and

$5 per 100 color sheets

Plaintiff’s weight-based shipping costs come to $2 per 10 pages

$1 for the material

$1 for the stamps

Plaintiff’s repair & replacement policy equals $50 per event

Plaintiff’s printing & shipping accommodations require two (2) hours of work

0.50 hours printing; and

1.50 hours shipping

Secondly, the post office transit times hamper Plaintiff’s litigative effectiveness.

Plaintiff loses 3-5 days for postal receipt of docketed filings

Plaintiff must allocate 5 days for postal delivery of [his/her] papers

Rule 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. only amends 3 of those days

So, out of the 17 days this Court allows for requisite responses2/, Plaintiff only enjoys 7-12 of them.

Altogether, filing-by-mail would equate to $213 in excess money spent, 254 excess hours used, and 569 potential days lost (please see Exhibit A). Amounts that operate as deterrents to justice. Especially considering how Defendants will not face any of these burdens.

With these factors in tow, Plaintiff states that it would be unreasonable to require [him/her] – and [him/her] only (¶5 supra) – to suffer the detriments of an eFiling restriction. As such, Plaintiff asserts that [he/she] has satisfied the first prong in the 4-part test for eFiling.

Promote Public Access to Public Information

Plaintiff avers that leave to eFile at PACER will: (a) enhance public access; and (b) benefit all parties.

For starters, Plaintiff – a state/federal taxpayer – is a member of the public. And as a member of the public Plaintiff is afforded the right to petition the government for redress (1st Amendment US Constitution).

However, due to the current unilateral prohibition on eFiling (¶2-4, supra), Plaintiff is not enjoying equal access to justice (14th Amendment, US Constitution).

In several ways, this Court will benefit from a more-responsive version of Plaintiff. For one, it will experience a reduced workload on account of better motions/responses/notices. Plus, this Court’s involvement in discovery disputes will likely decrease if Plaintiff’s abilities were more rapid. And, of course, the record [and potential appellate proceeding] will be much cleaner without the potential snafus from woebegone deliveries (see Tobin v Taylor, 4:20-cv-00292-MW-HTC {USFLMD}).

In short, eFiling will promote public access and benefit all case participants. Thus, Plaintiff has satisfied the 2nd prong in the 4-part test for electronic filing.

Not for Sale

Plaintiff will neither sell nor transfer any of the functionality obtained by the electronic filing apparatus (please see Affidavit). [He/She] will only need eFiling for functional reasons. Prong three satisfied.

Specific Purpose

Plaintiff only needs PACER’s eFiling portal for the duration of [his/her] case. [He/She] defines that period as follows:

Starting Date = Now (ie, [MMMM] [YYYY])

Ending Date = [a], [b], or [c] (whichever is later)

[a] = the end of the immediate case {this Court}

[b] = the end of an appellate case {Appellate Court}

[c] = the end of a supreme court case {Supreme Court}

Therefore, Plaintiff has satisfied the fourth prong in the four-prong test for eFiling.

Designated Email Address

If approved, Plaintiff would like this Court to designate the following email address for receipt of all electronic case filings:

[emlAddy]

Constitution

Plus – from a constitutional standpoint – subjecting Plaintiff to unnecessary burdens (time, money) without doing the same to Defendant would disregard the 14th Amendment. Especially considering Plaintiff’s membership in a long-disfavored demographic group. And the disparate impact that such an imposition has on that specific group.

“[To prove 14th Amendment infringement], a plaintiff can show that the law is applied in a discriminatory manner or imposes different burdens on different classes of people.”

Freeman v. Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 1995)

Plaintiff has not found any appellate case law stating that non-prisoner pro se litigants deserve unreasonable burdens (financial {$213}, time-wise {254 hours}, and/or tactical {569 days}). Nor has [he/she] found any appellate case law stating that a local rule which disproportionately impacts a specific demographic is rational on its face.3/

Moreover, USFLMD’s Local Rules fail to rationalize the disparity in treatment (no statistical evidence, no anecdotal evidence, etc.). Nor has this Court articulated any connection between electronic filing and impropriety. In effect, the rule is punitive, and only works to abridge a class of people’s 1st amendment right (access to the court).

Simply put, this Court’s pro se eFiling restriction discriminates against Plaintiff while failing to serve any legitimate purpose.

Summary

In all, this Court has good reason to grant Plaintiff permission to electronically file [his/her] court documents, because: (a) it will alleviate [him/her] of an unreasonable burden; (b) it will serve the greater good; (c) it will be used properly; (d) it will only be needed for the duration of Plaintiff’s case; and (e) it will afford equal protections for both parties.

NATURE OF RELIEF SOUGHT

Plaintiff seeks the [equal] ability to file and receive court documents electronically.

CONFERRAL

[conferralParagraph]

Thus, Plaintiff believes the foregoing presents a compelling (ie, equal protection) and important (ie, save time & resources) reason for obtaining the requested relief.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to enter an Order Granting Plaintiff Leave to Utilize Electronic Filing. Such an order will save time, resources, and it will support the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” determination of this action (see Rule 1 Fed. R. Civ. P.). Plus, it will comport with the equal protection clause of the US Constitution (14th Amendment).

Dated this [D] day of [MMMM] [YYYY].

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Elias Makere

ELIAS MAKERE, FSA, MAAA, Plaintiff

PO Box 324

Hobart, IN 46342

P: (904) 294-0026

E: justice.actuarial@gmail.com

W: TextBookDiscrimination.com

Get Booked Up on Justice!

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that the size and style of type used in this document is Times New Roman 14-point Font (caption) and Century Schoolbook 13-point Font (contents); thus complying with the font requirements of Local Rule 1.08.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this [D] day of [MMMM] [YYYY], I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Courts by using its online filing page. A notice – via CM/ECF – will be sent to the attached service list.

/s/ [plfName]

Endnotes:

2/ source = https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/electronic-public-access-fee-schedule
3/ 17 = 14 + 3 {Local Rule 3.01(c) plus Rule 6(d) Fed. R. Civ. P.).
5/ in Lewis v. Casey, 518 US 343 (1996), the US Supreme Court stressed “the right to equal access” between the parties.

Electronic Copy (text-searchable):

How-To Guide: How to Get eFiling Access

SERVICE LIST

[defAtt], Esquire ([barNum]) E: [defEml] P: [defPhn] (defendant’s trial lawyers)

EXHIBIT A

Plaintiff’s Rough Estimate of Expenses for Printing & Shipping

Author: TextBookDiscrimination.com

3/28/2024

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL COST TO PRINT & SHIP AN ENTIRE CASELOAD
$213
please see “Calculation A”

ESTIMATED TIME EXPENDITURE FOR PRINTING & SHIPPING AN ENTIRE CASELOAD
254 Hours
please see “Calculation B”

ESTIMATED PROSECUTORIAL DAYS LOST PRINTING & SHIPPING AN ENTIRE CASELOAD
569 Potential Days
please see “Calculation C”

CALCULATION A

$213

C	P	F	R
$179	0.308	3.87	$213

WHERE:

C = Printing & Shipping costs (per 600 sheets) (USD)

$179 = $48 + $11 + $120 (ink + paper + postage) (see ¶10, supra)

p = proportion of work load anticipated

0.308 = 5.65 x 32.76 ÷ 600.00

Where:

5.65 = average document size1

32.76 = average caseload2

600.00 = sheet load (see ¶10, supra)

F = plaintiff’s endurance factor

“endurance factor” ≈ the force in which this litigant proceeds

3.87 = 19.36 x 0.20

Where:

19.36 = endurance multiplier

19.36 = 543.00 ÷ 28.05

Where:

543.00 = Plaintiff’s last case3

28.05 = typical caseload of similar cases4

0.20 = conservative assumption for instant case’s zest

R = final result

Final Calculation:	$179.00 x 0.308 x 3.87 = $213

Footnotes

1 5.65 = Average Page Count {source: random selection of 100 previously downloaded records from DOAH (civil rights cases only)}

2 32.76 = Average Caseload = average number of docket entries in a case {source: full selection of USNYWD’s freely available docket (civil rights cases only (ie, NOS Code 442))}

3 “Plaintiff’s Last Case” a DOAH-domiciled lawsuit against Allstate Insurance Company

4 28.05 = Typical Caseload = average number of docket entries in a case {source: full selection of DOAH’s freely available docket (civil rights cases only)}

CALCULATION B

254 hours

T	W	F	R
2	32.76	3.87	254

WHERE:

T = Printing & Shipping time expenditure (per docket entry) (in hours)

2 = 0.50 + 1.50 (printing time + shipping time) (see ¶10, supra)

W = work load anticipated

32.76 = average caseload2

F = plaintiff’s endurance factor

“endurance factor” ≈ the force in which the litigant proceeds

3.87 = 19.36 x 0.20

Where:

19.36 = endurance multiplier

19.36 = 543.00 ÷ 28.05

Where:

543.00 = Plaintiff’s last case3

28.05 = typical caseload of similar cases4

0.20 = conservative assumption for instant case’s zest

R = final result

Final Calculation:	2.00 x 32.76 x 3.87 = 254

Footnotes

2 32.76 = Average Caseload = average number of docket entries in a case {source: full selection of USNYWD’s freely available docket (civil rights cases only (ie, NOS Code 442))}

3 “Plaintiff’s Last Case” a DOAH-domiciled lawsuit against Allstate Insurance Company

4 28.05 = Typical Caseload = average number of docket entries in a case {source: full selection of DOAH’s freely available docket (civil rights cases only)}

CALCULATION C

569 days

D	F	R
147	3.87	569

WHERE:

D = Potential°° Days lost in a case

147 = 4.50 x 32.76 (median days-lost times avg caseload)

4.50 = median days-lost = (2+7)÷2

2 = minimum days lost (ie, 14 – 12; see ¶11[4] supra)

7 = maximum days lost (ie, 14 – 7; see ¶11[4] supra)

32.76 = average caseload2

F = plaintiff’s endurance factor

“endurance factor” ≈ the force in which Plaintiff proceeds

3.87 = 19.36 x 0.20

Where:

19.36 = endurance multiplier

19.36 = 543.00 ÷ 28.05

Where:

543.00 = Plaintiff’s last case3

28.05 = typical caseload of similar cases4

0.20 = conservative assumption for instant case’s zest

R = final result

Final Calculation:	147.00 x 3.87 = 569

Footnotes

2 32.76 = Average Caseload = average number of docket entries in a case {source: full selection of USNYWD’s freely available docket (civil rights cases only (ie, NOS Code 442))}

3 “Plaintiff’s Last Case” a DOAH-domiciled lawsuit against Allstate Insurance Company

4 28.05 = Typical Caseload = average number of docket entries in a case {source: full selection of DOAH’s freely available docket (civil rights cases only)}

°° Potential Days will often run concurrent (ie, when deadlines share many of the same calendar dates) (ex: ‘Deadline A’ = 1/1/21 and ‘Deadline B’ = 1/2/21 while ‘Today’ = 12/24/20; so, most of the “potential days” will be double-counted; the impact of the lost days, of course, will still be felt)

Analysis Limitations

Money. The Author pulled this data from government sources which did not require financial payment. A better calculation would come from analyzing only this Court’s discrimination cases. Which would cost thousands of dollars; and be prohibitive. If done, however, Plaintiff has reason to believe that Calculation A and Calculation B would yield larger numbers.

Time. Calculation C should have a factor for overlapped deadlines. Such a factor would need additional data; data that would take too much time to mine. If done, however, Plaintiff has reason to believe that Calculation C would yield a smaller number.

note: This analysis is for the sole purpose of supporting the time-constrained civil case motion that it is attached to.

Verification Under Oath Pursuant to 28 USC §1746

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing analysis is true and correct. Executed this 28th day of March 2024.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA	[M]/[D]/[YYYY]
[plfName], Plaintiff

PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

[courtDistrict], [courtDivision]

[plfName]	)	Case No (LT)
Plaintiff	)	[caseNo]
)
v.	)
)
[defName]	)
Defendant	)

PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO UTILIZE ELECTRONIC FILING

The affiant, [plfName], swears or affirms as follows:

Background

I am over the age of eighteen (18).

I am a plaintiff in the above-captioned case.

This affidavit is made in good faith.

Familiarity

I have read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of Court, USCA11’s eFiling handbook; USFLMD’s eFiling handbook, and many other rules & regulations pertinent to civil litigation in federal court.

I’ve gone through PACER’s online tutorial; and have used PACER’s demo site extensively.

I also have experience with PACER’s eFiling apparatus.

Sworn Statements

I believe that this Court’s eFiling prohibition places an unreasonable burden on me.

In fact, the restriction has already injured me. I’ve had to spend 3+ hours re-writing/researching this motion.

All while other important matters have been pending.

Plus, the prohibition forces me to receive hardcopy orders. Hardcopies which are susceptible to unilateral omissions (eg, a page being excluded, etc.).

Speaking of harm, USFLMD’s eFiling prohibition has already caused – and will continue to cause – harm to my case.

I need permission to eFile to alleviate these burdens/harms.

I believe eFiling will promote public access of information.

I will not sell any of the obtained records (or eFiling functionality).

I will not transfer any of the obtained records (or eFiling functionality).

I only need eFiling access until the end of my civil dispute (after exhaustion of all trial and appellate remedies).

Declarations

I declare that all of my sworn statements are true.

I understand that a false statement may result in termination of my eFiling access.

Request

May you please grant me permission to electronically file and receive court documents? Thank You.

Verification Under Oath Pursuant to 28 USC §1746

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this [D] day of [MMMM] [YYYY].

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA	[M]/[D]/[YYYY]
[plfName], Plaintiff

BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™
Downloaded From www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
SELL YOUR OWN TEMPLATES (help others get the justice that they deserve)
BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™