CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OHIO, et al. v. THE BLOOD TRIBE, et al.

S.D. Ohio

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OHIO, et al. v. THE BLOOD TRIBE, et al.

DecidedOctober 28, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00033

StatusUnknown

This text of CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OHIO, et al. v. THE BLOOD TRIBE, et al. (CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OHIO, et al. v. THE BLOOD TRIBE, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OHIO, et al. v. THE BLOOD TRIBE, et al., (S.D. Ohio 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OHIO, et al., : Case No. 3:25-cv-00033 : Plaintiffs, : District Judge Thomas M. Rose : Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry vs. :

:

THE BLOOD TRIBE, et al., : : Defendants. :

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). 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OHIO, et al., : Case No. 3:25-cv-00033 : Plaintiffs, : District Judge Thomas M. Rose : Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry vs. :

:

THE BLOOD TRIBE, et al., : : Defendants. :

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). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OHIO, et al. v. THE BLOOD TRIBE, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-springfield-ohio-et-al-v-the-blood-tribe-et-al-ohsd-2025.