FANTEL

v.

PUBLIX GROCERY STORE

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an untitled pleading identifying himself and other persons as parties to this case and alleging violations of his civil rights. (See Dkt. 1.) Upon consideration, for the reasons outlined below, the court dismisses this case without prejudice.

Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor moved to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915; M.D. Fla. R. 6.03, 6.04. Moreover, Plaintiff did not use the required prisoner civil rights form to initiate this case. See M.D. Fla. R. 6.04(a)(3) (requiring pro se plaintiff prisoners to use the standard form to file a civil rights complaint). As a result, the complaint is missing required information, such as a detailed description of Plaintiff's litigation history. The court dismisses this case without prejudice to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to properly file a civil rights complaint on the required form and to either pay the filing fee or submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis supported by an affidavit of indigency.

Plaintiff's complaint must also comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 3, 8, 10, 11. Rule 8 requires a complaint to contain, among other things, a concise statement of each claim raised and the factual basis for the claims against each named defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff briefly describes claims that Defendants violated his constitutional rights, but these claims do not satisfy the applicable standard. (See Dkt. 1.) See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

In addition, Plaintiff appears to summarily request preliminary injunctive relief. (Dkt. 1 at 4.) However, a court's issuance of a preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishe[s] the burden of persuasion' as to each of the four prerequisites." Siegel v. LePore, 234 F. 3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F. 3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998)). These four prerequisites are (1) that the claim supporting the injunctive request demonstrates a "substantial likelihood of success on the merits[,] (2) that the preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury[,] (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the preliminary injunction would cause the other litigant[,] and (4) that the preliminary injunction would not be averse to the public interest.” Chavez v. Fla. SP

Warden, 742 F. 3d 1267, 1271 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F. 3d 1032, 1034–35 (11th Cir. 2001)). Further, when drafting a motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff must fully comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Middle District of Florida Local Rule 6.02. However, Plaintiff has not—as the rules require—filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, an affidavit or other evidence establishing his entitlement to relief, or a proposed order. See, e.g., M.D. Fla. R. 6.02(a). Because Plaintiff has not fully complied with the rules governing requests for preliminary injunctive relief, the court denies his request.

Accordingly:

1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and to close this case.

3. The Clerk is FURTHER DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff an affidavit of indigency form and a prisoner civil rights complaint form. If Plaintiff chooses to file a civil rights complaint, he must complete and submit those forms. Plaintiff should not place the instant case number on the forms as the Clerk will assign a new case number in the event Plaintiff chooses to pursue an action.

ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on July 21, 2025.

JULIE S. SNEED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Parties