CRUTCHFIELD BEY

v.

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT SAINT LUCIE COUNTY

THIS CAUSE is before me upon referral for appropriate disposition of all pretrial matters. DE 4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs, a currently pending motion, was filed on December 6, 2021. DE 3. Upon review of the record and being fully advised, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s case derives from a traffic citation. According to the Complaint, on October 23, 2021, Officer Alexis Bieger stopped Plaintiff’s motor vehicle at Southwest Prima Vista Boulevard and Southwest Bayshore Boulevard in Port Saint Lucie, Florida. DE 1 at 3, 9. Plaintiff was issued a traffic citation, # AEK1IGE, for driving with a suspended license in violation of Fla. Stat. § 322.34(2)(a). Id. at 9. On November 15, 2021, State Attorney for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Thomas R. Bakkedahl and Assistant State Attorney Paige Farach requested a capias warrant based on the one count charge against Plaintiff for driving with a suspended license with a prior conviction for doing so. DE 1 at 30-31. The warrant was issued the same day by Judge Daryl Isenhower. Id. at 31. On November 16, 2021, Plaintiff appeared before the court for arraignment. DE 1 at 28- 29. The Clerk of Court for St. Lucie County, Michelle R. Miller, filed the arraignment case notes

specifying Plaintiff’s criminal charges and noting the next court appearance was set for January 25, 2022.1 Id. On December 6, 2021, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint suing eight (8) state officials and agencies involved in his state court case stemming from his traffic citation on October 23, 2021. DE 1 at 1-8. Those sued include, but are not limited to, the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Saint Lucie County, Florida; Judge Isenhower; State Attorney Bakkedahl, Clerk of Court Michelle R. Miller and Officer Bieger. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he is a Moorish American, is entitled to $300,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages from each Defendant and invokes “[t]he Divine Constitution and By-Laws of the Moorish Science Temple of America[,]” among other Moorish authority. Id. at p. 4-5.

Also, on December 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. DE 3. Plaintiff failed to provide any information regarding self-income, bank accounts, property, monthly expenses, loans, financial debt, etc. Id. Plaintiff either crossed out questions or cited to the Florida Constitution. Id. Plaintiff also stated that he was “not obligated to discuss private information.”² Id. at 2.

ANALYSIS

Before screening Plaintiff’s complaint under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) governing in forma pauperis (“IFP”) applications, I must first determine if “the statements in the [applicant’s] affidavit satisfy the requirement of poverty.” Kitteriell v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., No. 22-

21655-Civ-Bloom/Otazo-Reyes, 2022 WL 2709110, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2022) (citation omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). An IFP applicant’s “affidavit will be held sufficient if it represents that the litigant, because of his poverty, is unable to pay for the court fees and costs, and to support and provide necessities for himself and his dependents.” Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F. 3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004); see also Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (IFP status need not be granted where one can pay or give security for the costs “and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.”). The section 1915 analysis requires “comparing the applicant’s assets and liabilities in order to determine whether he has satisfied the poverty requirement.” Thomas v. Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit, 574 F. App’x 916, 917 (11th

Cir. 2014). Authorization to proceed in forma pauperis is committed to the court’s sound discretion. Camp v. Oliver, 798 F. 2d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Thomas, 574 F. App’x at 916 (“A district court has wide discretion in ruling on an application for leave to proceed IFP.”). Here, Plaintiff does not provide any information to determine whether he qualifies for IFP status. Mindful of Plaintiff’s pro se status, I will permit him an additional opportunity to either fill out and submit a renewed IFP application or pay the filing fee in full. See Chandler v. United

Lucie County, Florida, two judges, and other state agencies. Id. United States District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg remanded the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at DE 5. States of America, No. 19-60853-Civ-Bloom/Reid, 2020 WL 7871939, at *2 (S.D. Fla. October 21, 2020) (denying without prejudice an incomplete IFP application). Any renewed IFP application shall be carefully reviewed. As a reminder, the requisite supporting affidavit operates as a declaration under penalty of perjury that the information included

in the application is true and reflects an understanding that any false statement may result in a dismissal of claims raised.³

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs, DE 3, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. By or before October 20, 2022, Plaintiff shall either pay the full filing fee or file a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis by completing an updated “Long Form” Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to either pay the filing fee or file a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis by this deadline may result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed without further notice.

SHANIEK MILLS MAYNARD

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copy via U.S. Mail to: Dexter Crutchfield Bey, pro se 425 North 21st Street Fort Pierce, FL 34950