Glover v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
1:16-cv-00185
S.D. Ga.Dec 16, 2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jacob Martin Glover filed suit and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- Plaintiff submitted incomplete financial information on his IFP application; the Court previously warned him in multiple cases about providing complete information.
- The Court denied IFP and ordered Glover to pay the full $400 filing fee within a set time period.
- Glover failed to remit the filing fee by the deadline and did not cure the deficiency after warning that noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
- The Magistrate Judge considered the Court’s inherent and local-rule authority to manage its docket and dismiss cases for failure to prosecute or to comply with orders.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the action without prejudice and closure of the civil case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order requiring payment of the filing fee | Glover sought IFP but submitted incomplete financial information (implicit request to proceed without paying fee) | Court (and defendants by implication) argued dismissal is appropriate due to noncompliance and failure to prosecute after warnings | Case recommended dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s order to remit the $400 filing fee |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice is warranted for a pro se litigant who failed to comply | Glover implicitly relied on pro se status and prior warnings (no express request to avoid dismissal with prejudice) | Court noted harshness of dismissal with prejudice for pro se litigants and declined to impose such a sanction | Dismissal without prejudice recommended; plaintiff not permanently barred from refiling |
Key Cases Cited
- Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir.) (district courts may manage dockets and dismiss for failure to prosecute or comply with orders)
- Hyler v. Reynolds Metal Co., 434 F.2d 1064 (5th Cir.) (district courts have inherent power to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
- Owens v. Pinellas Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 331 F. App’x 654 (11th Cir.) (dismissal without prejudice is appropriate where a litigant fails to comply with a court order after warning)
- Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir.) (warning a litigant supports dismissal under Rule 41(b))
- Minnette v. Time Warner, 997 F.2d 1023 (2d Cir.) (courts should be cautious about dismissing pro se cases with prejudice)