IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

JOHN CORMIER, : : Plaintiff : : CASE NO. 5:20-CV-486-MTT-TQL VS. : : STATE OF GEORGIA, et al., : : Defendants : __________________________________

DISMISSAL ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff John Cormier, an inmate at Baldwin State Prison in Hardwick, Georgia, filed a pleading that was docketed as a

civil rights claim. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed an incomplete motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. On February 10, 2021, Plaintiff was ordered to recast his complaint and provided instructions how to do so. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was further ordered that he was to either submit a complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee.

Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond and was informed that failure to comply could result in dismissal of his action.

Plaintiff responded to the Court’s order with the contention that there is no law that obligates him to address filing fees and that it is illegal for the Court to request payment of filing fees or a financial statement. ECF No. 6-1 at 1-2. He also accused the Court of violation of fiduciary duties and oath of office, as well as “tamper[ing] with … evidence, which is a Federal violation and misrepresented [his motion to proceed IFP] as a Motion which is discretionary and an assumption that permission must be requested…”

. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to recast his

complaint. Thereafter, on April 2, 2021, the Court notified Plaintiff of applicable authority regarding filing fees and leave to proceed without prepayment of fees within

and

(a). ECF No. 7. The Court further advised Plaintiff that he had not submitted a proper response to this Court’s order from February 10, 2021 and ordered him to show cause why his action should not be dismissed for failure to comply

and diligently prosecute his claims.

The Court unambiguously informed Plaintiff that his action would be dismissed if he failed to comply.

Plaintiff was given fourteen (14) days to respond.

On April 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response with the Court in which he again argues that he is not required to address filing fees. See ECF No. 8. More specifically, he states

that due to the bankruptcy of the United States on June 5, 1933, “…everything must be ‘paid’ for by the government…”

. Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s orders to recast his complaint and to file a complete motion to proceed in forma pauperis, his complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v.

Tallahassee Police Dep’t,

(11th Cir. 2006) (“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist.,

(5th Cir. 1978)). SO ORDERED, this 29th day of April, 2021.

S/Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT