Tag Archives: Denial to electronic filing

Corruption, Electronic Filing in the Court, PROACTIVE

Dr. Usha Jain for Equality in Justice for Pro Se Self-Representation

There are two sides to a lawsuit. If one is denied access to file using the same ‘system’ as the other side, that’s not “Equal Justice Under Law” as inscribed on the highest court of the land’s building. See Greene v. Frost Brown Todd, LLC, 856 F.3d 438 (6th Cir.2017) It’s unconstitutional. In Florida, state court efiling is mandatory for all parties. That is exactly how it should be in Federal Courts or the Constitution is merely a parchment with words with no meaning.

A person not represented by an attorney may file electronically only if allowed by court order or by local rule; and may be required to file electronically only by court order, or by a local rule that includes reasonable exceptions.

The self–represented litigants do not have access to an electronic system of the federal District court but it is only allowed to the one represented by a counsel thereby they are provided with the tools for safety and is not subject to clerical errors, lost and delayed mails. This is not equal access and is against the spirit of “Equal Justice Under Law” and this unlawful exception is unconstitutional and is against our democracy. There is no national uniformity per Professor
Edward H. Cooper and can be checked by clicking on the following link:
https://lawsintexas.com/electronic-filing-by-pro-se-in-federal-district-courts-should-bemandatory-as-per-state-courts/

The risk of exposure and spread of the deadly virus is increased when people are required to visit the post office to mail the paper filings as they must stand in line with those who may be infected in order to calculate and purchase postage or they must touch unsanitized self-service machines that are touched by many others each hour. Hand delivery to the court also increases exposure to other members of the public unknown to them as well as employees.
The appellate Federal Court (11th Circuit) and state court both allow filing electronically for self-representing citizens. Because electronic filing has ZERO risks of spreading COVID-19, it should be granted as an exception to prevent the spread of the deadly disease by any judge in the Federal Court.

Judge Mendoza disregarded the exceptional criteria of the national emergency and denied electronic filing. Instead, Judge Mendoza advised to mail the documents which also has inherent risk of exposure.
The risk of exposure and spread of the deadly virus is increased when people are required to visit the post office to mail the paper filings as they must stand in line with those who may be infected in order to calculate and purchase postage or they must touch unsanitized self-service machines that are touched by many others each hour. Hand delivery to the court also increases exposure to other members of the public unknown to them as well as employees.


Corruption, Electronic Filing in the Court, PROACTIVE

Denial of Electronic Filing by Judge Mendoza During Pandemic to Self Representing Asian Doctor and Engineer

Federal court is the court where one can get the adjudication of fundamental rights bestowed upon the citizens through the Constitution. If the state court Judge violates your constitutional rights of equality due to national origin or your race, congress made legislation where you can move your case to the Federal court of your District.

What happens when the Federal Judge is violating your constitutional rights of equality because you are self-representing and are of ethnic origin with English is your second language.

Dr. Usha Jain an emergency and anti-aging specialist and her husband who is an engineer were denied electronic filing in the Federal court of Orlando by Judge Mendoza by stating that the self-representing people do not know how to file properly.

“Documents filed pro se are, in my experience, often not correctly titled and frequently exceed the page limitations imposed by the Local Rules of this Court.” This statement is made despite knowing that pro se Asians are educated and have been filing in the state court for three years and appeals court as well. This was denied in 2019 and again in 2020 despite the disability of Mr. Jain with chronic knee pain. Furthermore, it was denied during stay-home-order during the pandemic.

The same Federal court provides the electronic filing to a Caucasian pro se in the same year in May of 2019 even when there was no pandemic or disability shown.

Why there is a discrepancy in the application of the Local Rule and policies in the same Federal Court to two different class of people. Where is the enforcement of equal application of Local Rule.

Why there is a violation by Judge Mendoza’s court of ADA Guidelines and CDC guidelines against the pro se of Asian race.

There are several disadvantages to not getting the electronic filing. Some of those are:

In Federal Court in Orlando, electronic filing is only for attorneys and only option for
pro se is via Postal Mail or Hand Delivery for filing motions and receiving orders. This
inequality has inherent prejudice to Plaintiffs who are pro se and colored in this case.


1. Service of the Order is one week by mail. In electronic filing the filing comes to
your email address and would be seen right away vs waiting for the mail.


2. Mailing puts you in a spiral of the uncertainty of reaching by mail;


3. Mailing exposes risk for coronavirus as one has to stand in the line with general
public to get an estimate of postage for the weight of papers which varies every filing;

4. Delivering the mail to the courthouse also exposes to court personnel during coronavirus stay at home orders;


5. Plaintiffs have to leave in fear from exposure of coronavirus;


6. The case can be easily manipulated for deletion and omission of the documents by the docketing clerk thereby pro se never can get justice in the court. technical default for pro se citizens.


7. The case can be easily manipulated for technical default for pro se citizens.

8.. Plaintiffs do not know the docket no. of their filing because they do not receive
any electronic mails from the court of their filings. Plaintiffs cannot reference the dockets.
This causes the records to be compromised as it happened in Doc. 112 in which Doc. 109
was cited but in actuality, it was in Doc. 110. It is really difficult to file any motions without
knowing the docket no of their filing; Plaintiffs have to rely on the clerk to provide the docket no. of their filings and also if
it is properly for example filing of Docket no 61 was labeled as response for motion;


9.. Lagging of seven days and unnecessary motions have to be filed to find out about
the orders when no emailing is allowed and phone calls get labeled as harassment;

Plaintiffs do not know the docket no. of their filing because they do not receive
any electronic mails from the court of their filings. Plaintiffs cannot reference the dockets.
This causes the records to be compromised as it happened in Doc. 112 in which Doc. 109
was cited but in actuality, it was in Doc. 110. It is really difficult to file any motions without
knowing the docket no of their filing;

The original color and highlighted areas in exhibits to emphasize would not show.

The inequality of Federal Judge Mendoza is very obvious in the Federal Court of Orlando.

 As observed by former Chief Judge Loren A. Smith, the Court is the institutional scale that weighs the government’s actions against the standard measure of the law and helps make concrete the spirit of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right “to petition the Government for redress of grievances.”