King v. Carlton

District Court, S.D. Florida·Decided June 15, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-21634·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 21-cv-21634-BLOOM

MATTHEW ALEXANDER KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN CARLTON,

Defendant. / ORDER ON MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Matthew Alexander King’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form), ECF No. [15] (“Motion”). The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, the record in this case, and the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set for below, the Motion is denied. On May 3, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the $402 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. [4], [10], and [14]. Plaintiff timely submitted his Application for Leave to Proceed without Prepaying Fees with an attached inmate account statement. ECF No. [15]. It is well-settled that proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, and not a right, and permission to so proceed is committed to the sound discretion of the Court. Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 1986). Likewise, district courts enjoy wide discretion in deciding whether a partial filing fee is fair and appropriate in a particular case. See Collier v. Tatum, 722 F.2d 653, 655 (11th Cir. 1983). The Court notes that while Plaintiff has signed and dated the Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees, he failed to answer any of the questions regarding his financial status. ECF No. [15] at 1-2. Moreover, a review of Plaintiff’s inmate trust fund account statement Case No. 21-cv-21634-BLOOM

indicates that as of May 21, 2021, Plaintiff has an account balance of $1,428.58. Id. at 3. Additionally, over the last six months, Plaintiff has received regular deposits averaging $165 per month. /d. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s financial affidavit is insufficient to find him indigent and unable pay the Clerk’s filing fee. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. [15], is DENIED. 2. On or before July 12, 2021, Plaintiff shall either pay the Clerk’s $402.00 filing fee or submit a completed Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to pay the Clerk’s filing fee or file a completed Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees by the stated deadline will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice and without further notice. 3. Plaintiff shall indicate “Case No. 21-cv-21634-BLOOM” on the check or money order so the Clerk can docket the payment in the correct case. This is especially important where Plaintiff has filed more than one case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on June 14, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of Record Matthew Alexander King 17576-104 Miami FDC Federal Detention Center Inmate Mail/Parcels

Post Office Box 019120 Miami, FL 33101

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

King v. Carlton, (S.D. Fla. 2021).

King v. Carlton (King v. Carlton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jerry Larry Collier v. Sergeant Tatum, Officer
722 F.2d 653 (Eleventh Circuit, 1983)
Camp v. Oliver
798 F.2d 434 (Eleventh Circuit, 1986)