Bilal v. GEO Group, Inc. (GEO)
OPINION AND ORDER denying re: 110 MOTION for clarification re 95 Order on motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency MOTION for miscellaneous relief, specifically to dispense with filing fee requirement. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/13/2018. (SLU)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JAMAAL ALI BILAL,
Case No: 2:16-cv-329-FtM-38MRM
GEO GROUP, INC. (GEO) and
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jamaal Ali Bilal's Motion for
Clarification Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) Requires Defendant's to Pay Filing Fees Based
Upon Their Choice to Remove this Case to the Federal Forum or in the Alternative Motion
to Dispense with Filing Fee Requirement Given the Fact Plaintiff was Allowed to Proceed
IFP in State Court Prior to Defendant's Choice to Remove this Case to the Federal Forum
(Doc. 110) filed on January 10, 2018. The Plaintiff argues that 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)
requires the Party removing the case to Federal Court to pay the Court’s filing fee.
Therefore, Plaintiff argues that Defendants should pay for his fees on appeal since they
removed the case to federal court.
Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or
websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are
cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By
allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve,
or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites.
Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink.
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does
not affect the opinion of the Court.
On November 12, 2015, the Defendants did pay the $400.00 filing fee to remove
the case to this Court. While Plaintiff argues that Defendants should also pay his fee to
file an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit, 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) specifically states that it
applies to the filing fees in the district courts and does not address the Circuit Courts of
Appeal. Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s claim, Defendants complied with 28 U.S.C. §1914(a).
Plaintiff also moves the Court to dispense with the filing fee requirement on appeal.
On February 9, 2018, the Court found that Plaintiff’s appeal was frivolous and not taken
in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4). As such,
Plaintiff’s motion to appeal IFP is denied.
Accordingly, it is now
Plaintiff Jamaal Ali Bilal's Motion for Clarification Whether 28 U.S.C. s 1914(a)
Requires Defendant's to Pay Filing Fees Based Upon Their Choice to Remove this Case
to the Federal Forum or in the Alternative Motion to Dispense with Filing Fee Requirement
Given Fact Plaintiff was Allowed to Proceed IFP in State Court Prior to Defendant's
Choice to Remove this Case to the Federal Forum (Doc. 110) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 13th day of March, 2018.
All Parties of Record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?