Restricted Filer - Montford v. Pryor, Jr. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 24-cv-20381-BLOOM/Lett
JOHN MONTFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR., et al.,
Defendant.
________________________________/
OMNIBUS ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff John Montford’s Motions for Leave to
File, ECF Nos. [150], [151], [152], and [153]. The Court has carefully reviewed the Motions, the
record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons discussed
below, the Motions are denied.
On August 8, 2008, United States District Judge Marcia G. Cooke barred Plaintiff from
filing any documents in this Court “unless signed by an attorney admitted to practice before this
Court, or unless leave to file has been granted.” Montford v. All Supreme Court Justices, et al.,
No. 08-CV-21778, ECF No. 28 at 2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2008). Thereafter, on July 17, 2024, United
States District Judge K. Michael Moore maintained Plaintiff’s status as a restricted filer and
enjoined him from any future filings in this Court unless signed by an attorney admitted to practice
before this Court, or if leave to file is granted. The Court stated:
Any such future motions for leave to file: (1) shall not exceed two pages, (2) shall
attach the proposed filing and explain why the proposed filing is not frivolous or
an unsubstantiated attack on any previous order entered in this case, and, (3) shall
certify, by affidavit and under penalty of perjury, that the proposed filing raises a
new issue that has not already been rejected by the Court or the Eleventh Circuit.
Case 1:24-cv-20381-BB Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/04/2025 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 24-cv-20381-BLOOM/Lett
2
ECF No. [93].
The Motions fail to explain why the proposed filings are not frivolous or an unsubstantiated
attack on previous orders entered in this case. Moreover, the Motions are not certified by affidavit
and under penalty of perjury, that the proposed filings raise new issues not already rejected by the
Court or the Eleventh Circuit as required by Judge Moore’s previous order and reiterated in this
Court’s Omnibus Order. See ECF No. [136].
I. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Motions, ECF Nos. [150], [151], [152], and [153] are DENIED.
2. 	Plaintiff is ENJOINED from filing any future documents in this case, or any case
within the Southern District of Florida, unless signed by an attorney admitted to
practice before this Court, or unless leave to file has been granted. Any such future
motions for leave to file: (1) shall not exceed two pages, (2) shall attach the proposed
filing and explain why the proposed filing is not frivolous or an unsubstantiated attack
on any previous order entered in this case, and, (3) shall certify, by affidavit and under
penalty of perjury, that the proposed filing raises a new issue that has not already been
rejected by the Court or the Eleventh Circuit.
3. 	The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED that any document received from Plaintiff
John Montford (with the exception of motions for leave to file) shall be REJECTED
unless signed by an attorney admitted to practice before this Court, or unless leave to
file has been granted.
Case 1:24-cv-20381-BB Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/04/2025 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 24-cv-20381-BLOOM/Lett
3
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on December 4, 2025.
_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:
John Montford
2241 NW 188 Terrace
Miami, FL 33056
Case 1:24-cv-20381-BB Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/04/2025 Page 3 of 3