Cobb v. Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Paul Craig Cobb, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
vs. 	)
)
Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc., et al., 	) 	Case No. 1:26-cv-354
)
Defendants. 	)
Plaintiff initiated the above-captioned action pro se on October 9, 2026, with the filing of
a paid complaint. (Doc. No. 1). He also filed an “Emergency Motion for Leave to Participate in
Electronic Filing (CM/ECF) as a Pro Se Litigant.” (Doc. No. 2). Therein he requests that the court
allow him to use CM/ECF, the court’s electronic filing system, to upload and file documents directly
from his computer to the court’s case file, asserting:
1. 	Simultaneously with this motion, Plaintiff is initiating a comprehensive civil
action under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18
U.S.C. Section 1964(c), detailing a time-sensitive, ongoing physical safety
crisis and severe localized tortious interference requiring instantaneous
judicial coordination.
* * *
2. 	Extreme geographic necessity exists because Plaintiff resides out of state in
Arkansas, making standard physical delivery to the Bismarck clerk’s desk
impossible. Relying on traditional postal mail for subsequent filings creates
a severe, multi-day procedural delay that catastrophically compromises
Plaintiff’s ability to protect their safety and constitutional rights in a rapidly
escalating scenario.
(Doc. No. 2).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(3)(B) provides in relevant part that a “[a] person not
represented by an attorney . . . may file electronically only if allowed by court order or by local
1
Case 1:26-cv-00354-DLH-CRH Document 7 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 3

rule.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(3)(B)(i). Some courts may have local rules permitting pro se litigants
to file electronically in limited circumstances. See e.g., McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. Police
Dep't, 455 F. App'x 874, 878 (11th Cir. 2011) (unpublished decision) (affirming district court's
denial of pro se plaintiff's access to CM/ECF to receive electronic notifications because the plaintiff
did not show good cause); Oliver v. Cty. of Chatham, No. CV417-101, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
90362, at *1 (S.D. Ga. June 13, 2017) (noting that “[p]ro se plaintiffs are unable to use this system
absent court authorization, which is sparingly granted,” and denying pro se plaintiff's motion for
CM/ECF access); Dunn-Fischer v. Dist. Sch. Bd., No. 2:10-cv-512-FtM-29SPC, 2010 WL 3522215,
at *1, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98253 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2010) (opining that “[i]t is the District's
preferred policy to disallow pro se litigants access to electronic filing unless extenuating
circumstances exist to justify waiving CM/ECF procedures, and the plaintiff had not shown good
cause”). However, this court’s local rules make no such provision.
This court’s local rules incorporate by reference the Administrative Policy Governing
Electronic Filing and Service. D.N.D. Civ. L.R. 5.1(A). This policy in turn provides that a “pro se
party may not register to use the [electronic case filing] system.” Administrative Policy Governing
Electronic Filing and Service at p. 1, https://www.ndd.uscourts.gov/ ecf/cm_ecf_policy.pdf. This
means that Plaintiff is not permitted to file electronically in this district.
Even if this court’s local rules did make limited allowances for pro se litigants to
electronically file using CM/ECF, Plaintiff’s concerns regarding delays he may encounter when
filing documents conventionally by sending them through the U.S. mail system does not constitute
an extenuating circumstance. See e.g., Clifft v. Sch. Dist. of Lee Cnty., No. 2:25-CV-345-JES-DNF,
2025 	WL 	3012038, 	at 	*1 	(M.D. 	Fla. 	Oct. 	28, 	2025), 	reconsideration 	denied, 	No.
2
Case 1:26-cv-00354-DLH-CRH Document 7 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 3

2:25-CV-345-JES-DNF, 2025 WL 3080533 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2025) (finding that the increased cost
and time required to mail filings did not constitute good cause to allow a pro se plaintiff access to
electronic notification and filing); Robinson v. Section 23 Prop. Owner's Ass'n, Inc., No.
2:16-CV-888-FTM-38CM, 2017 WL 1929662, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 10, 2017) (failing to find good
cause where plaintiff could prosecute his lawsuit via the U.S. Mail and by accessing the computer
terminals in the Clerk’s office). Although there may be some minimal delay associated with mailing
filings to and from another state, in this case Arkansas, such delay does not constitute good cause
to justify Plaintiff’s use of CM/ECF. See Postell v. Nestle Prepared Foods Co. USA, No.
3:18-CV-1134-J-JBT, 2019 WL 5102552, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2019) (finding that delays
encountered by a pro se litigant residing out-of-district did not constitute an extenuating
circumstance to justify his use of CM/ECF). Plaintiff’s request for leave to file electronically via
CM/ECF is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 14th day of October, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
3
Case 1:26-cv-00354-DLH-CRH Document 7 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 3