VILLARREAL
v.
BIDEN
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.
Plaintiff Villarreal's action against President Biden was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court's order to either pay the filing fee or submit a proper in forma pauperis application by the deadline of February 10, 2025.
The case is dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's order to either pay the filing fee or submit a proper in forma pauperis motion with supporting affidavits by February 10, 2025.
[1] A court may dismiss an action without prejudice for a non-prisoner's failure to comply with an order requiring payment of the filing fee or submission of a proper in form…
[2] A pro se litigant who is not a prisoner must either pay the filing fee or submit a sufficient in forma pauperis motion to avoid dismissal of their action.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The Court denied the motion because it failed to comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”
Establishes the basis for the initial denial of Plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff, a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that failed to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court denied…
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 Pro Se Litigant Obligations cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter comes before the Court on a sua sponte review of the file. Plaintiff, a non-prisoner who is proceeding pro se, moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2). The Court denied the motion because it failed to comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 4). The Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or move to proceed IFP with proper supporting affidavits by February 10, 2025, and warned him that failure to do so would result in this action being dismissed without further notice. (Id.) This deadline has come and gone, and Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's Order. Thus, his case is dismissed without prejudice. See Myers v. City of Naples, Fla., No. 23-13073, 2024 WL 4691100, at *2 (11th Cir. Nov. 6, 2024) (affirming the dismissal of an unrepresented, non-prisoner litigant's complaint for failure to contemporaneously pay the filing fee or move IFP); Hargrove v.
Tyndall Fed. Credit Union, No. 5:19-CV-238-TKW/MJF, 2019 WL 5927740, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 5902152 (Nov. 12, 2019) (dismissing case for failure to pay filing fee or move IFP after initial IFP motion was denied).
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny all pending motions as moot, terminate any deadlines, and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 18, 2025.
Sherister Rappell SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Villarreal v. Biden, 2019 WL 5927740 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…91100, at *2 (11th Cir. Nov. 6, 2024) (affirming the dismissal of an unrepresented, non-prisoner litigant’s complaint for failure to contemporaneously pay the filing fee or move IFP); Hargrove v. Tyndall Fed. Credit Union, No. 5:19-CV-238-TKW/MJF, 2019 WL 5927740, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 5902152 (Nov. 12, 2019) (dismissing case for failure to pay filing fee or move IFP after initial IFP motion was denied). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Villarreal v. Biden, 2019 WL 5927740 (M.D. Fla. 2025)