Franklin-El v. McCord (INMATE 1)
2:14-cv-00170
M.D. Ala.Jul 1, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Marvin Franklin-El, an Alabama state inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint challenging actions of the Montgomery County Circuit Clerk concerning an alleged unilateral change to his name, nationality, and citizenship.
- Franklin-El sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis and submitted prison account records for the preceding six months.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A), the court calculated an initial partial filing fee of $11.43 and ordered payment by a set deadline, advising Franklin-El to arrange transmission through the prison account clerk.
- The court warned that failure to pay or request an extension would result in a recommendation of dismissal, absent exceptional circumstances.
- Franklin-El filed motions seeking reconsideration and was granted extensions (until June 12, 2014) but did not pay the initial partial fee within the extended time.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to pay the required initial partial filing fee as ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action may proceed without payment of the § 1915 initial partial filing fee | Franklin-El sought in forma pauperis status and moved for reconsideration of the fee order (implicitly asserting inability or procedural grounds) | The court required payment per § 1915 and procedural rules; nonpayment meant noncompliance | Court recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to pay the initial partial fee |
| Whether equitable relief (extensions/reconsideration) excused noncompliance with fee order | Franklin-El filed motions and obtained extensions, arguing for more time | The court granted limited extensions but stressed payment obligation remained and required affirmative steps to transmit funds | Extensions were insufficient; continued nonpayment justified dismissal |
| Whether warning and opportunity to cure were adequate before dismissal | Franklin-El contends procedural fairness or inability might warrant reconsideration | Court issued express warnings, instructions to prison account clerk, and notice that dismissal would follow absent exceptional circumstances | Warning and opportunity to cure were held adequate; dismissal recommended is appropriate |
| Effect of failure to object to the recommendation | Franklin-El may not have timely objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation | Defendant/record anticipates no timely objections will preserve recommendation | The Recommendation gives parties until July 15, 2014 to object; failure to object bars de novo review and limits appellate challenges |
Key Cases Cited
- Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989) (dismissal for failure to obey a court order is not an abuse of discretion when litigant was forewarned)
- Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982) (failure to file objections to a magistrate judge’s report bars de novo review and limits appellate attack)
- Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982) (procedural standards for objections to magistrate reports)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (Eleventh Circuit adopts as binding precedent former Fifth Circuit decisions)