Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

IRAHETA v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, 8:17-cv-1303-T-36AAS. (2017)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20170802a33 Visitors: 16
Filed: Aug. 01, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2017
Summary: ORDER AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Electronic Filing Access (Doc. 23). Upon consideration, the Motion (Doc. 23) is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED 1 as follows: 1. To fully access the Court's electronic filing system, Plaintiff must have: internet access, an email account, PDF capabilities, and a PACER account. 2. Plaintiff shall register for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF link on the Court's
More

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff's Motion to Allow Electronic Filing Access (Doc. 23). Upon consideration, the Motion (Doc. 23) is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED1 as follows:

1. To fully access the Court's electronic filing system, Plaintiff must have: internet access, an email account, PDF capabilities, and a PACER account.

2. Plaintiff shall register for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF link on the Court's website at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. When filling out the request for a CM/ECF log in and password, Plaintiff is to insert 0000000 (seven zeros) when prompted to fill in a Bar number. Plaintiff may contact the Clerk's Office (813-301-5400) if assistance is needed registering for CM/ECF.

3. Once registered, Plaintiff shall complete the CM/ECF program tutorial on the Court's website. Plaintiff also shall become familiar with and follow the policies and procedures set forth in the ECF Administrative Procedures for Civil and Criminal Cases, which is available under the CM/ECF link on the Court's website.

4. In the alternative to filing electronically, Plaintiff is permitted to mail hard copies of his filings to the Clerk of the Court instead of filing in person at the courthouse.

DONE AND ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. On June 2, 2017, the undersigned denied without prejudicial Plaintiff's initial request and informed him of certain procedural requirements with which he had to comply (Doc. 9). It appears from Plaintiff's Motion, that those requirements have been met and that this request is unopposed. (Doc. 23).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer