KING v. MILLER et al

Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
MATTHEW CURTIS KING,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-239-MW-MJF
AUTUMN MILLER, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned recommends that the District Court dismiss this
civil action without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with two
court orders and failed to pay the filing fee despite his ability to do so.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee confined at the Bay County Jail. Doc.
1 at 2–3 in ECF. Plaintiff initiated this civil action on September 3, 2025,
by filing a civil-rights complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”). Docs. 1, 2. Plaintiff is suing Autumn Miller, the
attorney representing Plaintiff in his underlying state-court criminal
case, and the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel.
Case 5:25-cv-00239-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 7

Page 2 of 7
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights under the
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because Miller represented Plaintiff
despite a known conflict of interest—her participation in a local law
enforcement investigation of Plaintiff. Doc. 1 at 4–5 in ECF. Plaintiff is
seeking $10,000.00 in “pain and suffering.” Id. at 5.
Plaintiff’s IFP application included a financial affidavit signed by
Plaintiff on September 3, 2025, under penalty of perjury. Doc. 2. Plaintiff
stated in his financial affidavit that he had $4,472.40 in a checking or
savings account. Id. at 2.
On September 10, 2025, the undersigned determined that because
Plaintiff had sufficient funds to pay the $405.00 filing and administrative
fees, he did not qualify to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 4. Accordingly,
the undersigned denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis 	and 	ordered 	Plaintiff 	to 	pay 	the 	$405.00 	filing 	and
administrative fees by October 10, 2025. Id. The undersigned warned
Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order likely would result in this
case being dismissed.
Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee. Accordingly, on October 21, 2025,
the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not
Case 5:25-cv-00239-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 7

Page 3 of 7
be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply with an
order of this court. Doc. 5. The undersigned warned Plaintiff: “Plaintiff’s
response must be accompanied by payment in the amount of
$405.00.” Id. at 2. The undersigned also warned Plaintiff that failure to
comply with the order likely would result in dismissal of this case.
Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. Instead, Plaintiff has requested
another IFP application and an extension of time to submit a new IFP
application. Doc. 6. Plaintiff alleges that: (1) he “liquidated” his checking
account; (2) he “re-submitted” an IFP application to this court in early
October and attested he no longer had funds in the account; (3) this court
incorrectly filed the IFP application in a closed case, King v. Daffin, No.
5:25-cv-151-AW-MJF; and (4) Plaintiff should not be penalized for this
court’s “mis-action” because “the court [is] at fault.” Doc. 6 at 1.
The undersigned has reviewed the IFP motion that was filed in
Case No. 5:25-cv-151-AW-MJF. A copy of the first page of that motion is
attached to this report and recommendation. See Attach. 1; see also No.
5:25-cv-151, Doc. 6 (complete document). It was Plaintiff who wrote the
case number of the closed case on the IFP motion in black ink (as opposed
to the blue ink used by court personnel).
Case 5:25-cv-00239-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 7

Page 4 of 7
D ISCUSSION
The statutory fees for commencing a civil action in a federal district
court total $405.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), (b) (Judicial Conf. Schedule
of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, ¶ 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023)). The
in forma pauperis statute provides that a district court “may authorize
the commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees . . . by
a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets
such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The essential question is whether “the litigant,
because of his poverty, is unable to pay for the court fees and costs, and
to 	support 	and 	provide 	necessities 	for 	himself.” 	Martinez 	v. 	Kristi
Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004).
“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint
for failure to comply with a court order.” Foudy v. Indian River Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted);
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing the court to dismiss an action, or any
claim within it, “[i]f a party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a
court order”). A district court also may dismiss a civil action when a
Case 5:25-cv-00239-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 11/12/25 Page 4 of 7

Page 5 of 7
plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); N.D. Fla. Loc.
R. 5.3; Wilson v. Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1320-21 (11th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff has failed to comply with two court orders and has failed
to pay the filing fee. The record in this case, including Plaintiff’s own
statements, confirm that Plaintiff had sufficient funds to pay the filing
fee at the time he filed this lawsuit. See Doc. 2. Despite having sufficient
funds, Plaintiff moved to proceed IFP and then, after being ordered to
pay the fee, “liquidated” the account to avoid paying the fee and executed
a new financial affidavit claiming indigency.
Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee—and his failure to comply
with court orders to do so—was not caused by circumstances beyond his
control, but by his own actions. Walker v. Powell, 351 F. App’x 384, 386
(11th Cir. 2009) (“When [the p]laintiff’s own statements prove that he did
not comply with a court order and that compliance was within his control,
no further investigation is needed.”). Plaintiff’s actions do not excuse his
failure to comply with court orders to pay the filing fee.
An appropriate sanction for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court
orders and failure to pay the filing fee is to dismiss this case without
prejudice. See Wilson, 313 F.3d at 1321 n.7 (“If the court determines that
Case 5:25-cv-00239-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 11/12/25 Page 5 of 7

Page 6 of 7
[the prisoner] is unable to pay the partial filing fee at the time of
collection 	because 	he 	intentionally 	depleted 	his 	account 	to 	avoid
payment, the court in its sound discretion may dismiss the action.” (citing
Collier v. Tatum, 722 F.2d 653, 655-56 (11th Cir. 1983))); see also Walker,
351 F. App’x at 386 (dismissing prisoner’s complaint for failure to comply
with court order to make monthly partial filing fee payments where
prisoner’s account statements demonstrated that he used the funds for
canteen purchases instead of filing fee payments); Lumbert v. Ill. Dep’t of
Corr., 827 F.2d 257, 260 (7th Cir. 1987) (“A suit not worth $7.20 to an
inmate who could pay this fee is unlikely to be worth the time of the
courts. If the inmate thinks that a more worthwhile use of his funds
would be to buy peanuts and candy (two of the items that, the record
shows, Lumbert has purchased from the prison commissary) than to file
a civil rights suit, he has demonstrated an implied evaluation of the suit
that the district court is entitled to honor.”).
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
Case 5:25-cv-00239-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 11/12/25 Page 6 of 7

Page 7 of 7
1. 	DENY Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to re-apply to
proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 6.
2. 	DISMISS 	this 	civil 	action 	without 	prejudice 	based 	on
Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee and failure to comply with court
orders.
3. 	DIRECT the clerk of court to close this case file.
At Panama City, Florida, this 12th day of November, 2025.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Objections to
these proposed findings and recommendations must be
filed within fourteen days of the date of the report and
recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may
appear 	on 	the 	electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s
internal use only. A party must serve a copy of any
objections on all other parties. A party who fails to
object to this report and recommendation waives the
right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order
based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.
See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:25-cv-00239-MW-MJF Document 7 Filed 11/12/25 Page 7 of 7