Michael Shiflett v. Warden Ivey, et al.

M.D. Georgia

Michael Shiflett v. Warden Ivey, et al.

DecidedMarch 3, 2026

Docket5:25-cv-00452

StatusUnknown

This text of Michael Shiflett v. Warden Ivey, et al. (Michael Shiflett v. Warden Ivey, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michael Shiflett v. Warden Ivey, et al., (M.D. Ga. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

MICHAEL SHIFLETT, : : Plaintiff, : : VS. : : NO. 5:25-cv-00452-TES-CHW WARDEN IVEY, et al., : : Defendants. : _________________________________

ORDER

Plaintiff Michael Shiflett, who is housed in the Smith Transitional Center in Claxton, Georgia, filed a document that was docketed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1 & 2. Plaintiff did not, however, use the required § 1983 form. As a result, Plaintiff was ordered to file a recast complaint on the proper form. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff has now filed a recast complaint and an updated motion to proceed in forma pauperis.1 ECF Nos. 6 & 7. Any court of the United States may authorize the commencement a civil action, without prepayment of the required filing fee (in forma pauperis), if the plaintiff shows that he is indigent and financially unable to pay the court’s filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff’s updated prison trust fund account statement shows that he has a spendable balance of $3,809.69. ECF No. 7-1 at 2. Thus, it appears from his filings that Plaintiff has the ability to pay the Court’s $405.00 filing fee.

1Plaintiff did not originally file his recast complaint within the allotted time and was ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to file DENIED and Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the $405.00 filing fee if he wants to proceed

with this action.2 Plaintiff shall have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this order to pay the $405.00 filing fee. Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee may result in the dismissal of this case. In the meantime, there shall be no service of process in this case pending further order of the Court.

SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of March, 2026.

s/ Charles H. Weigle Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge

2Plaintiff’s initial motion to proceed IFP suggested that he was not financially able to pay the filing fee when he filed the complaint. ECF No. 2-2 at 1. This Court, however, may consider Plaintiff’s improved financial circumstances in ruling on his motion. Cf. Murphy v. Jones, 801 F. Supp. 283, 288-89 (E.D. Mo. 1992) (finding that “the Court may revoke [a] plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status if there is sufficient evidence that plaintiff’s financial

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

MICHAEL SHIFLETT, : : Plaintiff, : : VS. : : NO. 5:25-cv-00452-TES-CHW WARDEN IVEY, et al., : : Defendants. : _________________________________

ORDER

Plaintiff Michael Shiflett, who is housed in the Smith Transitional Center in Claxton, Georgia, filed a document that was docketed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1 & 2. Plaintiff did not, however, use the required § 1983 form. As a result, Plaintiff was ordered to file a recast complaint on the proper form. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff has now filed a recast complaint and an updated motion to proceed in forma pauperis.1 ECF Nos. 6 & 7. Any court of the United States may authorize the commencement a civil action, without prepayment of the required filing fee (in forma pauperis), if the plaintiff shows that he is indigent and financially unable to pay the court’s filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff’s updated prison trust fund account statement shows that he has a spendable balance of $3,809.69. ECF No. 7-1 at 2. Thus, it appears from his filings that Plaintiff has the ability to pay the Court’s $405.00 filing fee.

1Plaintiff did not originally file his recast complaint within the allotted time and was ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on his failure to file DENIED and Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the $405.00 filing fee if he wants to proceed

with this action.2 Plaintiff shall have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this order to pay the $405.00 filing fee. Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee may result in the dismissal of this case. In the meantime, there shall be no service of process in this case pending further order of the Court.

SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of March, 2026.

s/ Charles H. Weigle Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge

2Plaintiff’s initial motion to proceed IFP suggested that he was not financially able to pay the filing fee when he filed the complaint. ECF No. 2-2 at 1. This Court, however, may consider Plaintiff’s improved financial circumstances in ruling on his motion. Cf. Murphy v. Jones, 801 F. Supp. 283, 288-89 (E.D. Mo. 1992) (finding that “the Court may revoke [a] plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status if there is sufficient evidence that plaintiff’s financial

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Michael Shiflett v. Warden Ivey, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-shiflett-v-warden-ivey-et-al-gamd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack