UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
THOMAS PEPE,
Plaintiff,
v. 2:25-cv-536-JES-NPM
CHRISTOPHER DECOSTA, et ano,
Defendants.
ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Thomas Pepe requests permission to file papers via our
CM/ECF system. But the system contains confidential and other sensitive
information, and so access is generally restricted. See Administrative Procedures for
Electronic Filing (Aug. 1, 2025) for the United States District Court, Middle District
of Florida.
Even incarcerated or civilly committed pro se parties routinely litigate their
matters by mail. So, to present a colorable request for CM/ECF access, a pro se
litigant must show that “extenuating circumstances exist to justify waiving CM/ECF
procedures.” Huminski v. Vermont, No. 2:13-cv-692-FTM-29, 2014 WL 169848, *4
(M.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2014); see also McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. Police
Dep’t, 455 F. App’x 874, 878 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of CM/ECF access
for pro se litigant because there was “no good cause under the circumstances of the
case to authorize his access”). At a minimum, this would include both financial and
physical barriers that make it extraordinarily difficult to acquire postage and submit
envelopes to a mail carrier, and to otherwise deliver papers to the court.
The request would need to be verified (submitted under oath) and
corroborated by affidavits from medical and other sources. Moreover, the applicant
would need to demonstrate the absence of misuse of the judicial system by (1)
identifying every state and federal case to which he or she is or was a pro se party;
and (2) discussing the absence or presence of any adverse orders in those cases that
dismissed any frivolous claims, dismissed any actions for failure to prosecute or to
abide by court orders, or imposed any sanctions for such conduct such as a screening
procedure before items would be accepted for filing.
For failing to meet this standard, the construed motion for CM/ECF access
(Doc. 36) is DENIED.
ORDERED on January 30, 2026
NICHOLAS P. LE
United States Magistrate Judge
-2-
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.