UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 19-cv-62795-BLOOM/Reid

KEITH PAULL,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant. ___________________________________/

ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte examination of the record. On November 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights under

, ECF No. [1]. The Court has reviewed the Complaint, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. When Plaintiff initiated his lawsuit, he did not pay the filing fee required by

and S.D. Fla. L.R. 88.2, nor did his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. [3], attach a supporting, certified inmate account statement. Accordingly, on November 13, 2019, Judge Reid Ordered Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file a proper motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with required account statement by December 13, 2019. See ECF No. [4] (“IFP Order”). On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed his first request for production of documents, ECF No. [6]. That motion was denied and Judge Reid explained that the case “still has not been screened and approved to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§] 1915, nor has Plaintiff filed a proper motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the required $400 filing fee.” ECF No. [8]. Plaintiff was again reminded of his requirement to pay the filing fee because he did not respond to the IFP Order, and the deadline to comply was extended until January 3, 2020. ECF No. [8]. Notably, that Order also explained that “[f]ailure to comply with [Judge Reid’s] Orders may result in the dismissal of this case, and this is Plaintiff’s last chance to comply.” Id. On December 27, 2019, presumably in response to the Court’s Orders, Plaintiff filed a noncomplying Declaration in support of his request for in forma pauperis status, and he still has

not filed his required six-month inmate account statement. ECF No. [10]. To date, he has neither paid the filing fee nor filed a proper motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This is so despite being granted two extensions—until December 13, 2019 and then January 3, 2020—to cure his record deficiencies. Pursuant to

(a), “parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court, whether by original process, removal or otherwise . . . must pay a filing fee of $350.” See Robinson v. Raticoff,

at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2019). Further, S.D. Fla. L.R. 88.2 requires all civil rights complaints filed pursuant to

to be filed “together with filing fee” in the Clerk’s Office.

That rule also requires that if a complaint

is to be submitted in forma pauperis, then a plaintiff “shall submit [with the complaint] the form ‘Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit’ . . . which establishes that he or she is unable to pay the fees and costs of the proceedings[.]” S.D. Fla. L.R. 88.2(b). The record reflects that Plaintiff’s pleading runs afoul of

(a) and S.D. Fla. L.R. 88.2 and it therefore is due to be dismissed.1

1 Plaintiff was also warned that it is his “responsibility to actively pursue this case, obtain any essential discovery, file all necessary pleadings and motions and otherwise comply with all scheduling orders and prepare the case for trial. Failure to do this will probably result in dismissal of the case for lack of prosecution.” ECF No. [5] at ¶ 11. Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or otherwise file proper motions in disregard of this Court’s orders provides an alternative basis for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See Moon v. Newsome,

(11th Cir. Case No. 19-cv-62795-BLOOM/Reid

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUGED that Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is to CLOSE the case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on March 16, 2020.

BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record Keith Paull 191900354 Broward County Main Jail Inmate Mail/Parcels Post Office Box 9356 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33310

generally is not an abuse of discretion.”); see also Martins v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 15-21124-CIV,

, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2019) (collecting cases).