Jernazian v. City Of Miami-Planning Department

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedMay 11, 2023
Docket1:23-cv-21766
StatusUnknown

This text of Jernazian v. City Of Miami-Planning Department (Jernazian v. City Of Miami-Planning Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jernazian v. City Of Miami-Planning Department, (S.D. Fla. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 23-cv-21766-BLOOM

TASH JERNAZIAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI – PLANNING DEPARTMENT,

Defendant. _________________ / ORDER DISMISSING CASE THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. On May 11, 2023, Plaintiff Tash Jernazian docketed a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights, ECF No. [1] (“Complaint”). As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not paid the $402 filing fee ($350 + $52 administrative fee) or filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. “Parties instituting a civil action are required to pay filing fees[.]” Castro v. Director, F.D.I.C., 449 F. App’x 786, 788 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), (c)). Plaintiffs who cannot pay the filing fee may file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to proceed with their action without initial payment of the fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915 requires that plaintiffs file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.” Id. at (a)(1). “Despite the statute's use of the phrase ‘prisoner possesses,’ the affidavit requirement applies to all persons requesting leave to proceed IFP.” Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation Case No. 23-cv-21766-BLOOM

omitted). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court may dismiss a complaint for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order or the federal rules. See Brown v. Blackwater River Corr. Facility, 762 F. App’x 982, 985 (11th Cir. 2019) (“[A] district court may sua sponte dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with an order.”). Because Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a supporting financial affidavit, the Complaint is dismissed for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case and all pending motions are DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 11, 2023.

BETHBLOOM i ists UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Tash Jernazian 3601 NW Ist Ave., Unit C Miami, FL 33137

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

Related

Evelyn Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc.
364 F.3d 1305 (Eleventh Circuit, 2004)
Castro v. Director, Federal Deposit Insurance
449 F. App'x 786 (Eleventh Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jernazian v. City Of Miami-Planning Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jernazian-v-city-of-miami-planning-department-flsd-2023.