Wilkerson v. Phelps-Powers et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
PATRICK WILKERSON, SR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MELANIE PHELPS-POWERS, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No: 3:24-cv-114
District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on pro se Defendant Nakela McGhee’s motions to obtain
electronic case filing (“e-filing”) rights (Doc. #s 17-18). 	In her motions, Defendant McGhee
represents that she has reviewed the requirements for e-filing and agrees to adhere to these
requirements; that she understands that once she registers for e-filing, she will receive filings only
by email and not by regular mail; that she has access to technical requirements necessary to e-file
successfully; and that all documents filed electronically will conform substantially to the
requirements of the Local Rules for this District and to the format for the ECF system set out in
the most current edition of the ECF Policies and Procedures Manual issued by the Clerk. (Doc.
#13). Further, she understands that permission to e-file may be revoked at any time. Id.
While parties proceeding pro se are not usually allowed to file electronically, “[a] pro se
individual may apply to the assigned Judicial Officer for permission to electronically file
documents.” Southern District of Ohio CM/ECF Procedures Guide (rev. July 2019), p.4. Under
the circumstances of this specific case, Defendant McGhee’s requests to participate in e-filing in
this Court (Doc. #s 17-18) are GRANTED to the extent that she may participate in e-filing only
as to this particular case and conditional on her compliance with all applicable e-filing
Case: 3:24-cv-00114-MJN-PBS Doc #: 36 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
requirements. Defendant McGhee is DIRECTED to create a PACER account and then complete
the 	electronic 	filing 	registration 	for 	the 	Southern 	District 	of 	Ohio, 	as 	explained 	at
https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account/non-attorney-filers-cmecf.
Defendant McGhee is ADVISED that failure to adhere to applicable e-filing requirements
will likely result in the revocation of permission to participate in e-filing. Defendant McGhee is
specifically CAUTIONED that failure to update her email address and monitor her email account
(including her “junk mail” or spam folder) for court filings may result in the Court’s dismissal of
the action. Cf. Yeschick v. Mineta, 675 F.3d 622, 630 (6th Cir. 2012) (affirming district court’s
denial of motion for relief from judgment where counsel’s neglect in failing to check docket until
more than a month after he learned that he was not receiving notice of electronic filings because
he failed to update his email address on file with the district court); Equal Emp’t Opportunity
Comm’n v. Indi’s Fast Food Rest., Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00590, 2016 WL 7473130, at *6 (W.D. Ky.
Dec. 28, 2016) (noting that defense counsel represented that “he did not receive any Court-related
notices or emails because they were all sent to his ‘junk mail’ folder” and finding that “[d]efense
counsel’s non-receipt of emails does not relieve his responsibility to monitor the Court’s docket
and keep apprised of developments within his active cases, which he failed to do here”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 30, 2025 	s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-00114-MJN-PBS Doc #: 36 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>