Michael George Haggerty v. Rick Scott, et al.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: March 19, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00998
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

MICHAEL GEORGE HAGGERTY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 2:25-cv-00998-JES-NPM

RICK SCOTT, et al.

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on review of the file. On March 17, 2026, Plaintiff, Michael George Haggerty (“Haggerty”), filed his Eighth Amended Complaint (Doc. #56), a Motion for Service of Process by the U.S. Marshals (Doc. #57), and a Motion for Extension of Time for Service of Process (Doc. #58). Additionally, Plaintiff already had pending from March 10, 11, and 13, 2026, three motions for service by the U.S. Marshals (Docs. ## 47-48, 53). Given Haggerty has now filed four motions seeking identical relief, the first three motions are now moot. Accordingly, the motions filed on March 10, 11, and 13 are denied as moot. Further, the Court has not authorized Haggerty to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Instead, the Court has twice denied such motions as moot since Haggerty has paid the filing fee. (Docs. ## 19, 41.) Since Haggerty is not proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court will not require service to be completed by the U.S. Marshals. While Haggerty is proceeding pro

se, this is not a license to ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, Haggerty’s Motion for Service by the U.S. Marshals is denied. Additionally, the Court will not grant an additional extension for service of process. The Court has already provided Haggerty until March 27, 2026, to either file proof of service or waivers of service. (Doc. #44.) Accordingly, Haggerty’s motion for an extension of time for service of process is denied. Finally, the Court will strike Haggerty’s Eighth Amended Complaint. A party may only amend its pleading “once as a matter of course.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Any further amendments can

only be done “with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Id. Haggerty amended his complaint as of right on November 14, 2025. Further, Haggerty was only given leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint by this Court on December 15, 2025. Since Haggerty filed his Eighth Amended Complaint without leave of the Court, it will be struck. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Service by United States Marshal (Doc. #47) is DENIED as moot. (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Service by United States marshal (Doc. #48) is DENIED as moot. (3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Service by United States Marshal (Doc. #53) is DENIED as moot. (4) Plaintiff’s Motion for Service of Process by United States Marshal (Doc. #57) is DENIED. (5) Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time for Service of Process (Doc. #58) is DENIED. (6) The Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to strike and remove the PDF of the Eighth Amended Complaint (Doc. #56). DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 19th day of March 2026.

adi E. STEELE SHEIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: Parties of record