City of Springfield, Ohio et al v. The Blood Tribe et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OHIO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THE BLOOD TRIBE, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:25-cv-00033
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
ORDER CONCERNING ELECTRONIC FILING RIGHTS
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Pohlhaus and Berentz’ separate
motions for electronic filings rights and/or to receive email service through the electronic
filing system. (Doc. Nos. 21, 23, 24.) The motions were filed by these Defendants
without the assistance of counsel.
Generally, “[p]arties proceeding pro se are not permitted to file electronically.”
S.D. Ohio CM/ECF Procedures Guide, Section 1.1. However, “[a] pro se individual may
apply to the assigned Judicial Officer for permission to electronically file documents.”
Id.; see also S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 83.5(b) (“If the Court permits, a party to a pending
proceeding who is not represented by an attorney may register as a Filing User solely for
the purposes of that action.”). “[T]he grant of electronic filing privileges is a privilege
granted to pro se litigants in the discretion of this Court.” Needham v. Butler Cnty. Jail,
No. 1:19-cv-294, 2019 WL 5883643, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 12, 2019) (emphasis added).
Case: 3:25-cv-00033-TMR-CHG Doc #: 45 Filed: 10/28/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Defendant Pohlhaus’ “Motion for electronic filing Representing myself” (Doc.
No. 21) is DENIED. Pohlhaus is in default and has not demonstrated that he should be
allowed to electronically file documents in this case. (See Clerk’s Entry of Default, Doc.
No. 41; Sanctions Order against Pohlhaus, Doc. No. 39.) See also Newberry v. Cox
Media Grp., LLC, No. 3:25-cv-215, 2025 WL 2443080, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 25, 2025)
(denying similar motion where the Court was “not confident that Plaintiff would use the
Court’s efiling system only to submit appropriate documents that comport with the
applicable rules.”).
Defendant Berentz’ Motions for Electronic Filing Rights and To Receive Service
Through the Electronic Case Filing System (Doc. Nos. 23, 24) are also DENIED.
Berentz has not provided good grounds for the motions. See Young v. City of Logan, No.
2:25-cv-698, 2025 WL 2483445, at *9 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 28, 2025) (denying similar
motions where the plaintiff “has not demonstrated any need for such privileges or given
any reason why they should be granted.”). Moreover, the filings in this case suggest that
Berentz may be intentionally evading service (see Doc. Nos. 13, 14) and these motions—
submitted without the requested address and phone number—may have been filed in
furtherance of that goal. (Doc. Nos. 23, 24.) The undersigned concludes that granting the
privilege of electronic filing and service to Berentz is not warranted at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Caroline H. Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00033-TMR-CHG Doc #: 45 Filed: 10/28/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>