DECKER
v.
CHARLOTTE COUNTY
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 dismissed the action because the Plaintiffs failed to pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis as previously ordered, and their subsequent filings did not cure this deficiency.
Plaintiffs were ordered to pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis by a specific date, with a warning of dismissal for non-compl…
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 In Forma Pauperis (Ifp) Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is a sua sponte review of the case. A previous Order warned Plaintiffs they must pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) by July 8. The Order warned, “If Plaintiffs do not comply with this Order, the Court will dismiss this action without further notice.” (Doc. 3 at 4). Plaintiffs failed to pay the fee or file an IFP motion. After the Order, Plaintiffs made three filings: a (1) petition for writ of mandamus (Doc. 4); (2) request for a hearing (Doc. 5); and (3) motion to strike the Order (Doc. 6). To be sure, the Court must liberally construe Plaintiffs’
much less make the requisite showing. So the Court should dismiss for failure to prosecute and comply with an Order. E.g., Walker v. Miner, No. 8:16-cv-284- T-36SPF, 2018 WL 10705407, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2018). One last note. Plaintiffs mention “at no point was any cause presented
by movant intended to be ‘instituted.’” (Doc. 6 at 1). If Plaintiffs did not intend to institute an action, there is nothing left for the Court to do except dismiss. The Court only has jurisdiction over “cases” and “controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III. § 2. If Plaintiffs believe the Court can issue a writ of mandamus
unrelated to any case or controversy, they are mistaken. All-Writs power does not confer jurisdiction on its own. E.g., Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534-35 (1999). Instead, “a court’s power to issue any form of relief— extraordinary or otherwise—is contingent on that court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction over the case or controversy.” United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009). So while the Court has broad powers to issue writs, it cannot do so in the abstract. See Burr & Forman v. Blair, 470 F. 3d 1019, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, deny any pending motions as moot, terminate all deadlines, and close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on July 11, 2022.
, Lh platrathe 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Cordero, 7 F.4th 1058 (11th Cir. 2021)
- Burr & Forman v. Blair, 470 F.3d 1019 (11th Cir. 2006)
- Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (U.S. 1999)
- United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904 (U.S. 2009)