ORDER

CAROL MIRANDO, Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon review of Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond with a Second Amended Complaint filed on April 23, 2018. Doc. 73. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, seeks an extension of her April 30, 2018 deadline to file a second amended complaint. See id.; Doc. 71 at 9. Plaintiff does not specify how long of an extension she needs, but asks for a "similar extension of time" as was granted Defendants. Doc. 73 at 2. Defendants requested fourteen (14) additional days to respond to Plaintiff's original Complaint, which the Court granted. Docs. 26, 32. For good cause shown and because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will grant the requested extension.

The Court reminds Plaintiff, however, that Plaintiff's motions must comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, "the right of self-representation does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law," including the Middle District of Florida Local Rules. See Sanders v. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 151 F.R.D. 138, 139 (M.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd sub nom. Sanders v. Fluor Daniels, Inc., 36 F.3d 93 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988)).1 Local Rule 3.01(g) requires that each motion filed in a civil case, with certain enumerated exceptions not at issue here, contain a statement "stating whether counsel agree on the resolution of the motion." Here, Plaintiff's motion does not indicate she conferred with Defendants and whether Defendants consented to the relief sought. Any future motions filed without a Local Rule 3.01(g) certification will be denied.

ACCORDINGLY, it is

ORDERED:

Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond with a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 73) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have up to and including May 14, 2018 to file a second amended complaint.

DONE and ORDERED.