PEPE
v.
SHENKO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The district court dismissed pro se plaintiff Thomas Pepe's complaint without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as required by statute and local rule for non-incarcerated litigants.
Yes. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because plaintiff, as a non-incarcerated litigant, was required to either pay the filing fee or submit a signed application to proceed in forma pauperis, neither of which was provided.
“Each district court by rule or standing order may require advance payment of fees.”
Establishes the court's statutory authority to require filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(c)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Thomas Pepe, a pro se litigant not in custody, filed a complaint but did not pay the required filing fee and did not submit an affidavit or …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Dismissal Without Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Thomas Pepe's Complaint. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff (who is not in custody) has yet to pay the filing fee or move to proceed without prepayment of costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (allowing a litigant to commence a civil action without prepayment of the filing fee if the litigant submits an affidavit showing they are unable to pay). The Court thus dismisses this action without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(c) (“Each district court by rule or standing order may require advance payment of fees."); Local Rule 1.05(c) (“The clerk must accept an initial paper from a person in custody even if no filing fee or motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanies the paper." (emphasis added)); Myers v. City of Naples, Fla., No. 23-13073, 2024 WL 4691100, at *2 (11th Cir. Nov. 6, 2024) (affirming the dismissal of an unrepresented, non-prisoner litigant's complaint for failure to
contemporaneously pay the filing fee or move in forma pauperis). If Plaintiff wants to proceed with his claims, he may file another complaint under a separate case number that is accompanied by the required filing fee or a signed long form application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs (available at www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ao239 1.pdf).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny any pending motions as moot, terminate any deadlines, and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 3, 2025.
Sherri Polster Chappell SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record