FISHER
v.
PAUL
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.
The court denied the petitioner's motion for an arrest warrant and directed him to file an amended petition clarifying jurisdiction and causes of action.
Pro se petitioner filed a petition for custody and a motion for a warrant for the arrest of an unidentified individual for serious crimes. The petitio…
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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)(B)(Ii) cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court on pro se Petitioner James Fisher’s Petition for Custody (Doc. 1), Motion for Warrant (Doc. 3), and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4). In Fisher’s Motion for Warrant, Fisher asks the Court to “issue a warrant for the arrest of Paul”—an otherwise unidentified “older white male” in his 50s—for sexual battery, kidnapping, and attempted murder. (Doc. 3). As the Court has previously informed Fisher, the decision to investigate and prosecute criminal activity lies with the executive branches of government through its law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, not the Court. See, e.g., (Doc. 8 at 1, Fisher v. Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office, 3:18-cv- 00284-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.)). Fisher’s Motion for Warrant, (Doc 3), is therefore denied. The Court has also reviewed Fisher’s Petition for Custody, (Doc. 1), as part of its review of his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Other than a vague reference to a “1973 Mental Health Act of Congress,” Fisher fails to identify a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, a cause of action, or a justification for the relief he seeks. See (Doc. 1). And to the extent that Fisher seeks a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, his filings do not meet the required standards for relief. See, e.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65; Local Rules 6.01 and 6.02; see also Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F. 3d 1223, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2005) (setting out four-part test to secure a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction). Fisher is therefore directed to file an amended petition which clarifies the Court’s jurisdiction, any causes of action, and the basis for his requested relief. Fisher shall do so no later than January 31, 2023. Fisher is advised that if he fails to file an amended petition by the
January 31, 2023 deadline, this case will be dismissed without prejudice without further notice for failure to prosecute. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida the 10th day of January, 20238.
\ Ww TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN = United States District Judge rmv Copies to: Counsel of record Pro se Petitioner