GARCIA
v.
PTAK
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 court held that a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis must use the court's standard form for civil rights complaints, and failure to do so warrants dismissal.
The plaintiff, a pro se pretrial detainee, filed a third amended civil rights complaint but did not use the court's standard form. He had previously b…
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 Civil Rights Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, a Florida pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed a third amended civil rights complaint (Doc. 12). He did not use the Court's standard form for civil rights complaints. He was warned that failure to use the standard form would result in dismissal of this action (See Doc. 11).
Accordingly:
1. This action is DISMISSED. The dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff initiating a new action by filing a new complaint on the Court's civil rights complaint form in a new case with a new case number. See Local Rule 6.04(a)(3) (“A pro se person in custody must use the standard form — available without charge from the clerk and on the court's website — to file ... a complaint, such as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, that alleges a violation of the United States Constitution or other federal law by a
1
governmental official.").¹
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to: 1) mail to Plaintiff a copy of each of these documents: a) the Court's standard prisoner civil rights complaint form; and b) this Order; and 2) close this case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 25, 2024.
Charlene Edwards Honeywell Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge
Copy to: Plaintiff, pro se
2
[fn 1]: If Plaintiff elects to re-file his claims, he is cautioned that an alleged violation of a criminal statute seldom gives rise to a private cause of action. See, e.g., Love v. Delta Air Lines, 310 F. 3d 1347, 1352–53 (11th Cir. 2002); Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 552 F. 3d 1290, 1303 (11th Cir. 2008) (rejecting concept that Congress authorized “a federal private right of action any time a civil plaintiff invokes a federal criminal statute").