KENNETH KOLB, APPELLANT,
v.
D.L. FUSCO, D. INMAN, J. HARRIS AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEES
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.
A Florida appellate court affirms the dismissal of a prison inmate's civil complaint for damages regarding lost personal property because the inmate failed to file a required affidavit of indigency. The court rejects the inmate's challenge to the dismissal, holding that compliance with the indigency affidavit requirement is mandatory for each suit filed by inmates.
The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that compliance with section 57.085's affidavit of indigency requirement is mandatory for each suit filed by an inmate. The inmate's failure to file the required affidavit with the second complaint justified dismissal, even though the clerk notified the inmate of the deficiency and the inmate had opportunity to remedy the defect.
[1] A prisoner's civil complaint may be dismissed for failure to comply with the statutory requirements for an affidavit of indigency.
[2] Compliance with the statutory requirements for an affidavit of indigency is mandatory for inmate filings.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because compliance with section 57.085 is mandatory, dismissal was proper.”
Establishes the non-discretionary nature of the indigency affidavit requirement for prison inmate civil complaints.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenneth Kolb, an incarcerated person, initially filed a petition for mandamus in circuit court regarding lost or destroyed personal property and prope…
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 Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion for Rehearing
WARNER, J.
We deny the motion for rehearing, withdraw our prior opinion, and substitute the following in its place.
Appellant, a prison inmate, challenges the dismissal of his civil complaint for failure to provide an affidavit of indigency in compliance with section 57.085(2), Florida Statutes (2004). We affirm.
Appellant first filed a petition for mandamus in the trial court (Case No. 04-509 CA) for replacement by the prison system of lost or destroyed personal property. He presented an affidavit of indigency pursuant to section 57.085(2), Florida Statutes. The Clerk of the Circuit Court determined that appellant was indigent, and the court then entered an order requiring monthly payments from appellant’s prison trust account to pay the filing fee in accordance with the statute. Appellant filed an appeal to this court of this order, which we treated as a petition for certiorari (Case No. 4D04-4808) and denied in January 2005, noting that the request to proceed as an indigent was not denied but that the statute requires that the inmate reimburse the clerk for the advancement of the court costs by creating a lien on the prisoner’s trust account. In the meantime, appellant filed a second civil complaint in circuit court (Case No. 04-571) seeking damages for the loss of personal property (lost shoes) and demanded judgment for damages as well as injunctive relief.' The appellant did not file an affidavit of indigency with this complaint. Although the clerk of court notified the appellant of the deficiency, he failed to correct it by filing an affidavit, and the trial court dismissed his complaint, without prejudice. Appellant could have filed an indigency affidavit and requested reinstatement of his complaint within the time allowed for rehearing, but he did not do so. Because compliance with section 57.085 is mandatory, dismissal was proper. The requirements of section 57.085 must be met for each suit filed by an inmate, as successive filings may require other information. See, e.g., § 57.085(7), Fla. Stat. Affirmed.
STEVENSON, C.J., and HAZOURI, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maddrie v. Colton, 998 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…Moore, 807 So. 2d 819, 820 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). A direct appeal was the proper method to seek review of the order at issue in this case which refused to find Maddrie indigent and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. See, e.g., Kolb v. Fusco, 927 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 940 So. 2d 1125 (Fla.2006). Under any standard of review, however, Maddrie is not entitled to relief. Considering his patently abusive filing, even if he had adequately listed all his prior proceedings, the trial cour…