Pantle v. Crawford

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: February 24, 2025
• Docket: 6:24-cv-01591
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

SHAD DOUGLAS PANTLE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-1591-CEM-LHP

CHARLES G. CRAWFORD, MELANIE FREEMAN CHASE, CARLOS G. MUNIZ and DARYL ISENHOWER,

Defendants

ORDER Before the Court is a Motion to Prove the Authority to Represent Defendants, filed by Plaintiff, who appears pro se. Doc. No. 57. Plaintiff asks that the Court “order the Florida Attorney General and its deputies to prove their authority under Florida law to represent Defendants in the instant case.” Id. at 7. Defendants oppose. Doc. No. 58. Without leave of Court, Plaintiff has filed a reply. Doc. No. 59. Upon consideration, Plaintiff’s reply (Doc. No. 59) is ORDERED stricken as filed without leave of Court. See Local Rule 3.01(d). And the Court finds Plaintiff’s motion unpersuasive for the reasons argued by Defendants in response (Doc. No. 58), namely that Plaintiff cites no legal authority for his position that counsel is not authorized to represent Defendants, who are Judges being sued for

acts taken during judicial proceedings. Cf. Salfi v. Ising, 464 So. 2d 687, 689 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985) (“As a circuit judge appellant is entitled to free representation by the attorney general.”); see also Thompson v. Wainwright, 714 F.2d 1495, 1501 (11th Cir. 1983) (“[S]o far as state law is concerned, the attorney general had authority to speak for the interests of state courts and judges as well as the other instrumentalities of Florida state sovereignty.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. No. 57) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on February 24, 2025.

LESLIE NOFFMAN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

-2-