Jablonski v. The Travelers Companies, Inc.

Filing 31

ORDER denying 26 Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency; granting 27 Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures. Plaintiff shall have up to and including October 30, 2015 to provide his initial disclosures to Defendant or, to the extent necessary, supplement any disclosures he previously produced. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 10/7/2015. (ANW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
EDWARD J. JABLONSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-365-FtM-38CM

THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES,
INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Indigency, construed as a Motion
for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 26), filed on September 25, 2015, and
Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures (Doc. 27),
filed on October 1, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Affidavit of
Indigency, construed as a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is denied,
and Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures is
granted.
Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case without the
prepayment of the filing fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doc. 26. An
individual may be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis if he declares in an affidavit
that he “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
When considering a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), “[t]he only
determination to be made by the court .... is whether the statements in the affidavit
satisfy the requirement of poverty.” Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305,

1307 (11th Cir. 2004). A person need not be “absolutely destitute” or reduce herself
to a public charge in order to proceed in forma pauperis; rather “an affidavit will be
held sufficient if it represents that the litigant, because of [his] poverty, is unable to
pay for the court fees and costs, and to support and provide necessities for [himself]
and [his] dependents.” Id.
Here, however, the case was removed by Defendant from circuit court in Lee
County, Florida to this Court. Doc. 1. Accordingly, Defendant paid the requisite
filing fee when it chose to have this case litigated in this Court rather than the state
court. Doc. 1. Consequently, Plaintiff is not responsible for the filing fee, and his
motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
Defendant also filed an Unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Initial
Disclosures. Doc. 27. Although the motion is filed as unopposed, it appears that
Plaintiff filed a response on October 2, 2015.

Doc. 29.

The response seems to

address Defendant’s initial disclosures but not the merits of the motion to compel.

Id.

The response, however, also includes several documents attached to it that

appear to be discovery.

To the extent that Plaintiff has not provided these

documents to Defendant, Plaintiff is ordered to do so. Also, to the extent that these
documents are not Plaintiff’s initial disclosures, Plaintiff is ordered to provide his
initial disclosures to Defendant.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel is

granted. Plaintiff shall have up to and including October 30, 2015 to provide his
initial disclosures to Defendant or, to the extent necessary, supplement any
disclosures he previously produced.

-2-

The Court also strongly urges Plaintiff to retain counsel. In the event he is
unable to do so, before preparing any further pleadings, Plaintiff is encouraged to
visit the “Proceeding Without a Lawyer” section of this Court’s website at
www.flmd.uscourts.gov. The website includes tips, frequently asked questions,
sample forms, and a “Guide for Proceeding Without a Lawyer.” Plaintiff is informed
that if he chooses to proceed pro se, it is mandatory that he proceed in accordance
with Federal and Local Rules. Loren v Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002)
(noting that despite certain leniency afforded pro se parties, they must follow
procedures). Failure to comply with the Court’s Orders or the Federal or Local Rules
could result in the Court recommending that his case be dismissed.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Indigency, construed as a Motion for Leave to

Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 26) is DENIED.
2.

Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures

(Doc. 27) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have up to and including October 30, 2015 to
provide his initial disclosures to Defendant or, to the extent necessary, supplement
any disclosures he previously produced.

-3-

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 7th day of October, 2015.

Copies:
Counsel of record
Pro se parties

-4-