McFadden v. West Palm Beach Police Officer

Decision Date24 May 1995
Docket NumberNo. 95-0305,95-0305
Citation658 So.2d 1047
Parties20 Fla. L. Weekly D1246 Robert Lee McFADDEN, Appellant, v. WEST PALM BEACH POLICE OFFICER, etc., Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County; James R. Stewart, Jr., Judge.

Robert Lee McFadden, Malone, pro se appellant.

Adam M. Corin, Asst. City Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WARNER, Judge.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal without paying the statutory filing fee to the clerk of the court for processing this appeal. Our court sent out our standard order requiring that the $250 filing fee or order of indigency from a circuit court judge must be filed in this court within ten (10) days from the date of the entry of this order. The order provided that "failure to comply within the time prescribed would result in dismissal of the appeal." An affidavit of insolvency was then filed in this court in which the appellant attested that he was indeed indigent. We then sent another standard order indicating that the filing fee or an order of indigency "SIGNED BY A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE" must be filed to avoid dismissal. Nothing was filed, and we issued one more order directing the appellant to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with our orders. Again, nothing was filed, and the case came to the panel for dismissal.

Ordinarily, we would sua sponte dismiss this case without comment, as we have done in the past when neither the filing fee nor an order of indigency required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.430 has been filed. However, on the same day that this case was circulated to the panel, we received an order from the supreme court in a similar case granting a petition for writ of mandamus and ordering an indigent appellant's case to be reinstated. That has given us pause to consider how this court should proceed in cases where neither a filing fee nor an order of indigency has been filed in an appeal.

Last August 1994, Ronald Beatty filed a pro se notice of appeal from a final order of dismissal issued by the trial court of Broward County. No filing fee accompanied the notice. That case was docketed with our court and given a file number (Case No. 94-02168). As with the instant case, an order was sent out requiring the statutory fee or an order of indigency signed by a circuit judge to be filed or the case would be dismissed. The appellant responded by filing an affidavit of insolvency. While the appellant wrote the court indicating that the affidavit was being submitted to the trial court for an order of indigency, no order was forthcoming. This court then gave the appellant an additional twenty days to file the required order from the trial court. When nothing was filed, this court dismissed Beatty's case on September 16, 1994, approximately forty-five days after the filing of the notice of appeal. This denial prompted Beatty to file a petition for writ of mandamus in the supreme court to order the clerk of this court to reinstate the appeal. A response was filed, and the supreme court entered the following order:

The Petition is hereby granted and the respondent is hereby directed to reinstate petitioner's appeal, it appearing to have been undisputed at all times that appellant was indigent and entitled to the entry of an order of indigency for purposes of appeal.

In accordance with the petition, we have reinstated Beatty's appeal.

What occurred in Beatty places us in a quandary as to what to do in the instant case. While this issue may seem trivial, it is not so to the individual litigant or to this court. In the first three months of 1995, this court sent out 167 orders requiring the payment of the filing fee or the filing of an order of indigency from the lower tribunal in conformance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.430. The supreme court's disposition in Beatty has called into question our procedure and the viability of the appellate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Levy Cnty. Sheriff's Office/ N. Am. Risk Servs. v. Allen
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 2014
    ... ... (the injury did not occur “during the officer's work period or while going to or coming from ... ,” the JCC analyzed whether an off-duty police officer who is “suddenly thrust” into the ... that three 1990 cases applied including Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office v. Ginn, 570 So.2d ... ...
  • McFadden v. Fourth Dist. Court of Appeal
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 25, 1996
    ...with the district court's orders. When McFadden did not respond, the district court dismissed the case. McFadden v. West Palm Beach Police Officer, 658 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). McFadden received the district court's second and third orders and the dismissal order when he was returned......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT