Rosalind Holmes v. United States Department of HUD

S.D. Ohio

Rosalind Holmes v. United States Department of HUD

DecidedDecember 31, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00914

StatusUnknown

This text of Rosalind Holmes v. United States Department of HUD (Rosalind Holmes v. United States Department of HUD) 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

Rosalind Holmes v. United States Department of HUD, (S.D. Ohio 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

ROSALIND HOLMES, Case No. 1:25-cv-914 Plaintiff, McFarland, J. Litkovitz, M.J. vs.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ORDER OF HUD, Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s emergency motions for leave to file documents by email/alternative electronic means (Doc. 7), to ensure access to the court and for temporary relief from electronic filing barriers (Doc. 8), to deem motions filed as of date of attempted electronic submission (Doc. 9), and for PACER fee exemption/hardship access (Doc. 10). On December 29, 2025, the Court granted plaintiff an exemption from the payment of fees for access via PACER to the electronic case files maintained by the Court for purposes of this case only. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file documents by email/alternative electronic means (Doc. 7) and to ensure access to the court and for temporary relief from electronic filing barriers (Doc. 8) are DENIED as moot as they seek relief already granted by the Court in its December 29, 2025 Order. Plaintiff’s motion to deem motions filed as of date of attempted electronic submission (Doc. 9) is GRANTED. Because plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted (Doc. 2), plaintiff’s complaint and other motions attached thereto are deemed “filed” as of the date they were delivered to the Clerk of Court. See Scott v. Evans, 116 F. App’x 699, 701 (6th Cir. 2004); Truitt v. County of Wayne, 148 F.3d 644, 647 (6th Cir. 1998). See also Robinette v. ProMedica Pathology Lab’ys, LLC, No. 21-3867, 2022 WL 4540192, at *2 (6th Cir. May 9, 2022) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(2)(A)). Plaintiff's motion for PACER fee exemption/hardship access seeks “an order granting her an exemption from PACER fees in the amount of $61.90 pursuant to Judicial Conference Policy. ...” (Doc. 10 at PAGEID 99). To the extent plaintiff may be seeking a waiver of $61.90 in PACER fees related to other cases, the motion is DENIED. Otherwise, the motion is DENIED as moot as the Court has already granted an exemption from PACER fees for this case only. IT ISSO ORDERED. 12/31/2025 Hen. Re Athen Date Karen L. Litkovitz 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

ROSALIND HOLMES, Case No. 1:25-cv-914 Plaintiff, McFarland, J. Litkovitz, M.J. vs.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ORDER OF HUD, Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s emergency motions for leave to file documents by email/alternative electronic means (Doc. 7), to ensure access to the court and for temporary relief from electronic filing barriers (Doc. 8), to deem motions filed as of date of attempted electronic submission (Doc. 9), and for PACER fee exemption/hardship access (Doc. 10). On December 29, 2025, the Court granted plaintiff an exemption from the payment of fees for access via PACER to the electronic case files maintained by the Court for purposes of this case only. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file documents by email/alternative electronic means (Doc. 7) and to ensure access to the court and for temporary relief from electronic filing barriers (Doc. 8) are DENIED as moot as they seek relief already granted by the Court in its December 29, 2025 Order. Plaintiff’s motion to deem motions filed as of date of attempted electronic submission (Doc. 9) is GRANTED. Because plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted (Doc. 2), plaintiff’s complaint and other motions attached thereto are deemed “filed” as of the date they were delivered to the Clerk of Court. See Scott v. Evans, 116 F. App’x 699, 701 (6th Cir. 2004); Truitt v. County of Wayne, 148 F.3d 644, 647 (6th Cir. 1998). See also Robinette v. ProMedica Pathology Lab’ys, LLC, No. 21-3867, 2022 WL 4540192, at *2 (6th Cir. May 9, 2022) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(2)(A)). Plaintiff's motion for PACER fee exemption/hardship access seeks “an order granting her an exemption from PACER fees in the amount of $61.90 pursuant to Judicial Conference Policy. ...” (Doc. 10 at PAGEID 99). To the extent plaintiff may be seeking a waiver of $61.90 in PACER fees related to other cases, the motion is DENIED. Otherwise, the motion is DENIED as moot as the Court has already granted an exemption from PACER fees for this case only. IT ISSO ORDERED. 12/31/2025 Hen. Re Athen Date Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rosalind Holmes v. United States Department of HUD, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosalind-holmes-v-united-states-department-of-hud-ohsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack