“Federal courts have long recognized that they have an obligation to look behind the label of a [pleading] filed by a pro se inmate and determine whether the [pleading] is, in effect, cognizable under a different remedial statutory framework.” (citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- “Federal courts have long recognized that they have an obligation to look behind the label of a [pleading] filed by a pro se inmate and determine whether the [pleading] is, in effect, cognizable under a different remedial statutory framework.” (citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 23-cv-24509- BLOOM
SHERMAN DORSEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTH FLORIDA EVALUATION
AND TREATMENT CENTER,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. On November
20, 2023, Plaintiff Sherman Dorsey filed a “Complaint [f]or [a] Civil Case” which the Court
construes as a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights Under 28 U.S.C. § 1983.1 See generally
ECF No. [1] (claiming that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated); see also United States
v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624-25 (11th Cir. 1990) (“Federal courts have long recognized that they
have an obligation to look behind the label of a [pleading] filed by a pro se inmate and determine
whether the [pleading] is, in effect, cognizable under a different remedial statutory framework.”
(citation omitted)). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not paid the Court’s filing fee or filed
a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiffs who cannot pay the filing fee may file a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis so that they may initiate their action without first paying the Court’s filing fee. See 28
1 Under the prison mailbox rule, “a pro se prisoner’s court filing is deemed filed on the date it is delivered
to prison authorities for mailing.” Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1290 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2009) (citations
omitted). “Absent evidence to the contrary, [the Court assumes] that a prisoner delivered a filing to prison
authorities on the date that he signed it.” Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014)
(citation omitted).
Case No. 23-cv-24509-BLOOM
U.S.C. § 1915. Under § 1915, a legally sufficient motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
must be accompanied by “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses
... [and] a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for. . .
the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint... .” /d. at (a)(1)-(2).
Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may dismiss a
complaint for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order or the federal rules. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Because Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, the Complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Brown v. Blackwater
River Corr. Facility, 762 F. App’x 982, 985 (11th Cir. 2019) (“[A] district court may sua sponte
dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with an order.”).
Accordingly, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Complaint, ECF No. [1], is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on November 29, 2023.
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Sherman Dorsey, PRO SE
7080650
South Florida Evaluation & Treatment Center
18680 SW 376th Street
Florida City, Florida 33034