Shekar v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al
| Roger Shekar |
| PHH Mortgage Corporation doing business as Onity Group, Inc., Onity Group, Inc., Glen Messina, Selene Holdings, LLC doing business as Selene Finance, L.P., Pretium Partners, LLC, Altisource LLC, Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, Katie Brewer, Imelda Avalos, William Shepro, John Vella, Michelle Esterman, Scott Anderson, Donald Mullen and Joseph Davila |
| 8:2025cv01227 |
| May 12, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| John L Badalamenti |
| Christopher P Tuite |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1346 Breach of Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 23, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 29 NOTICE of Local Rule 1.11(e), which provides that, unless an order states another time, a seal under Rule 1.11 expires ninety days after a case is closed and all appeals are exhausted. To prevent the content of a sealed item from appearing on the docket after the seal expires, a party or interested non-party must move for relief before the seal expires. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (AM) |
Filing 28
TEXT ORDER. In light of the 11th Circuit's decision dismissing the appeal in this case and noting that Plaintiff, to date, has failed to timely file a third motion to proceed in forma pauperis as directed by the Court's prior Order (Doc. 22), after de novo review and careful consideration, the Court denies the motion to recuse Judge Tuite (Doc. #21), the motion to recuse Judge Mizelle is DENIED AS MOOT, and the Court DISMISSES this case for failure to comply with Court Orders. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) ("The authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an 'inherent power,' governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases."). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to deny all pending motions as moot, terminate any deadlines, and close the file. Signed by Judge John L. Badalamenti on 10/21/2025. (BPC)
|
|
Filing 27
ORDER of USCA: Pursuant to the 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), this appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution because the appellant Roger Shekar failed to pay the filing and docketing fees to the district court, or alternatively, file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in district court within the time fixed by the rules as to #23 Notice of Appeal filed by Roger Shekar. EOD: 10/7/2025. Issued as the mandate. USCA number: 25-13218-F. (MCB)
|
|
Filing 26
ENDORSED ORDER denying #21 Motion for Recusal. The undersigned has been reassigned this case by the Clerk of Court. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to recuse Judge Mizelle is DENIED as moot. Apparently displeased with earlier orders in this action, Plaintiff, appearing pro se, asserts that he doubts Judge Tuite's ability to be impartial and follow the law. Plaintiff's motion for the recusal of Judge Tuite is DENIED. The Court has carefully reviewed all of the pleadings and orders docketed in this case and finds no basis for Judge Tuite's recusal. Plaintiff's conclusory assertion that Judge Tuite cannot be impartial is insufficient. The Court's independent review of the orders issued to date in the case readily reveals that Judge Tuite has decided all matters per the applicable laws and rules, including the rules governing in forma pauperis status, which necessarily requires mathematical computations by rule. At its core, Plaintiff disagrees with the laws and rules that were, in this Court's judgment, impartially and correctly applied by Judge Tuite. A party's disagreement with an order creates no basis for recusal. Johnson v. Monaco, 350 F. App'x 324, 327 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Berger, 375 F.3d 1223, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004) and citing Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000)). Plaintiff identifies no meritorious basis for recusal under 28 U.S.C. 455. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). The motion for recusal of Judge Tuite is DENIED. Based on Plaintiff's adamant, italicized no less, statement that he "will not be prosecuting his claims against the defendants before this court" without the recusal of Judge Tuite, the Court will DISMISS this case unless Plaintiff SHOWS CAUSE WITHIN 14 DAYS why the Court should not heed his intent to abandon this action and, as such, for this Court to DISMISS THIS CASE. No extensions will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. And the case will be dismissed without further notice by this Court. Lastly, to the extent Plaintiff requests an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, Plaintiff has neglected to demonstrate any basis to permit such under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Signed by Judge John L. Badalamenti on 9/25/2025. (Badalamenti, John)
|
| Filing 25 Case Reassigned to Judge John L. Badalamenti. New case number: 8:25-cv-1227-JLB-CPT. Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle no longer assigned to the case. (JNB) |
| Filing 24 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re #23 Notice of Appeal. (AA) |
| Filing 23 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 22 Order on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, by Roger Shekar. Filing fee not paid. (AA) |
|
Filing 22
ENDORSED ORDER re: Plaintiff's second amended #20 Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Second Amended IFP Motion). In July 2025, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff's first amended IFP Motion because, as pertinent here, it did not include his spouse's income. See (17). As a result, the Court instructed Plaintiff to file a second amended IFP motion that cured this infirmity (as well as another deficiency noted by the Court) or to pay the filing fee. Id. Despite this directive, Plaintiff's Second Amended IFP Motion still does not include his spouse's income. See (#20). Further, the only explanation Plaintiff seemingly offers to excuse this defect is that his "spouse [is] not a party to this lawsuit." See id. at 1. This perfunctory assertion is wholly inadequate, as it is in direct contravention of the Court's July 2025 Order, is devoid of any supporting authority, and ignores the wealth of contrary case law. See, e.g., Sutton v. Colvin, 2016 WL 7971445, at *1 n.2 (M.D. Fla. July 26, 2016) (stating that spousal income can be considered in determining a plaintiff's IFP status) (collecting cases); Trimble v. Volz, 2008 WL 4490181, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2008) (same); Jones v. St. Vincents Health Sys., 2007 WL 1789242, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2007) (denying an IFP petition based on the combined monthly income and assets of plaintiff and his wife). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Second Amended IFP motion is denied without prejudice. No later than September 12, 2025, Plaintiff shall either file a third amended IFP motion that addresses the infirmities identified by the Court in its July 2025 Order (17) or pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is again warned that a failure to abide by this directive may result in the dismissal of his case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite on 8/27/2025. (ACL)
|
| Filing 21 MOTION to Recuse and Disqualify Judge by Roger Shekar. (AA) Modified on 8/21/2025 to edit event type (RN). |
| Filing 20 Amended MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis / Affidavit of Indigency by Roger Shekar. (AA) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite. Modified docket text on 8/21/2025 (JG). |
|
Filing 19
ENDORSED ORDER. This cause is before the Court sua sponte. On July 10, 2025, the Court entered an Order stating that, no later than August 1, 2025, Plaintiff shall either file a second amended IFP motion or pay the filing fee. See (17). A review of the docket reveals that Plaintiff did not comply with this Order. Out of an abundance of caution, however, the Court will afford Plaintiff until August 22, 2025, to either file a second amended IFP motion or pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is warned that a failure to abide by this directive may result in the dismissal of his case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite on 8/6/2025. (MEL)
|
| Filing 18 MANDATE of USCA: DISMISSED as to #11 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Roger Shekar. Issued as Mandate: 7/24/2025. USCA number: 25-11747-E. (MCB) |
|
Filing 17
ENDORSED ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiff's amended #16 Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (IFP Motion). A few considerations inform the Court's decision. First, Plaintiff's amended IFP Motion does not include his spouse's income. Sutton v. Colvin, 2016 WL 7971445, at *1 n.2 (M.D. Fla. July 26, 2016) (discussing that plaintiffs "are charged with income to which they have access, such as their spouse's income,... when determining applications to proceed in forma pauperis" and that a plaintiff's "failure to disclose a spouse's income may result in the denial of IFP status"). And second, certain figures in Plaintiff's amended IFP Motion are enlarged compared to those in his original IFP Motion (#2) without any explanation as to the reason for the discrepancy. Accordingly, no later than August 1, 2025, Plaintiff shall either file a second amended IFP motion that addresses the above issues or pay the filing fee. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite on 7/10/2025. (MEL)
|
| Filing 16 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Roger Shekar. (e-portal) (JKB) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite. |
| Filing 15 OPINION of USCA: DISMISSED as to #11 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by Roger Shekar. EOD: 6/25/2025. Mandate to issue at a later date. USCA number: 25-11747-E. (MCB) |
|
Filing 14
ENDORSED ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's #10 Motion to Enlarge Time to File IFP in Long Form and to Seal the Previously Filed Short Form (Doc. 2). Plaintiff's motion is granted to the extent that he shall have until June 26, 2025, to file a renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis using the correct form. Plaintiff's motion is denied in all other respects. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite on 5/27/2025. (MEL)
|
|
Filing 13
ENDORSED ORDER: The plaintiff "seeks leave to file an interlocutory appeal." (Doc. #11). The Court interprets this as a request to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Section 1292(b) interlocutory review is "a rare exception" to the rule that final judgment must precede appellate review, McFarlin v. Conseco Services, LLC, 381 F.3d 1251, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004), and the plaintiff has not justified applying that exception here. Therefore, the plaintiff's request is DENIED. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 5/22/2025. (BTM)
|
| Filing 12 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re #11 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (JKB) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to #9 Order on Motion for Reconsideration / Clarification by Roger Shekar. Filing fee not paid. (JKB) |
| Filing 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File IFP Long Form, MOTION for Miscellaneous Relief, specifically Seal Previous IFP Short Form by Roger Shekar. (e-portal) (JKB) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER: Because Shekar has not shown good cause or extenuating circumstances justifying access to CM/ECF, his motion for reconsideration (Doc. #8) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 5/21/2025. (BTM)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION for Reconsideration re 5 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, by Roger Shekar. (e-portal) (JKB) Modified filing date on 5/20/2025 (JKB). |
|
Filing 7
ENDORSED ORDER: To correct a scrivener's error in his original motion, the plaintiff files an Amended Motion for Leave to File Documents Electronically and for a CM/ECF Account. (Doc. #6). This motion is DENIED for the reasons stated in the order on the original motion. See (Doc. 5). Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 5/16/2025. (BTM)
|
| Filing 6 MOTION for Miscellaneous Relief, specifically for E-File and CM/ECF Account Scrivener's Error Corrected by Roger Shekar. (eportal) (GL) |
|
Filing 5
ENDORSED ORDER denying pro se plaintiff Roger Shekar's Motion for Leave to File Documents Electronically and for a CM/ECF Account (Doc. #4). The Court declines to grant an exception to the general rule that pro se litigants must file paper documents with the Court because Shekar has failed to "demonstrate[] that an exemption is necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote access to information." Ogilvie v. Millsaps, No. 8:15-cv-2477-T-36JSS, 2015 WL 6688343, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2015). The Court notes that any member of the public can access electronic records of the federal courts by registering online with PACER, indeed Shekar represents that he has a PACER account, and pro se litigants may file paper documents by mail or electronically without CM/ECF access through the Court's Electronic Document Submission Web Portal. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 5/15/2025. (BTM)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Miscellaneous Relief, specifically Petition to Grant Leave for e-File and CM/ECF Account by Roger Shekar. (e-portal) (unsigned) (JKB) |
|
Filing 3
ENDORSED ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiff's #2 Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form). A review of Plaintiff's application reveals that he used the incorrect form. If Plaintiff elects to renew his application, he shall use the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form), found at the following link: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/fee-waiver-application-forms/application-proceed-district-court-without-prepaying-fees-or. Plaintiff shall file any renewed application by May 23, 2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite on 5/14/2025. (MEL)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Roger Shekar. (eportal) (GL) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite. |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants with Jury Demand filed by Roger Shekar. (eportal)(GL) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
