Restricted Filer - Stinson v. United States Department of Veteran Affairs et al
| Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr. |
| United States Department of Veteran Affairs, Douglas A. Collins, Joshua Jacobs, Joseph (Joe) Schmitt and Janet L. Yellen |
| 1:2026cv24433 |
| June 25, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Lauren Fleischer Louis |
| Rodolfo A Ruiz |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 29 U.S.C. § 0791 Job Discrimination (Rehabilitation Act) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 17, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 26
ORDER of DISMISSAL from USCA. Motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal filed by Appellant Mark T. Stinson is GRANTED re #16 Notice of Appeal, filed by Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr. USCA #26-12741-E. (apz)
|
| Filing 25 CLERK'S NOTICE re DE 24 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,. Additional Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) sent to Financial Clerk (cwc) |
|
Filing 24
PAPERLESS ORDER granting #21 Plaintiff's Motion for Refund of Mistaken Filing Fee. Plaintiff "moves this Court for an Order directing the Clerk of Court to refund a filing fee that was inadvertently paid after this action had been dismissed." Mot. at 1. Plaintiff paid the filing fee on August 3, 2026, [ECF No. 14], after the Court dismissed his case on July 31, 2026, [ECF No. 12]. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion, [ECF No. 21], is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to refund Plaintiff the $405.00 filing fee paid on August 3, 2026. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 8/7/2026. (adn)
|
|
Filing 23
PAPERLESS ORDER denying #17 Motion to Proceed as a Veteran on Appeal (IFP) ("IFP Motion"). Plaintiff is appealing the Court's Order Affirming and Adopting Report and Recommendation and Denying Motion for Leave to File Complaint, [ECF No. 12], and its Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), [ECF No. 15]. See Notice of Appeal, [ECF No. 16]. A proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") on appeal requires (1) an affidavit that (2) shows in detail the party's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs, (3) claims an entitlement to redress, and (4) states the issues that the party intends to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Moreover, an appeal may not be taken IFP "if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3). Accordingly, Plaintiff's IFP Motion, [ECF No. 13], is DENIED for the following reasons. First, Plaintiff has not submitted an affidavit showing in detail his inability to pay or give security for fees and costs. His IFP Motion merely refers to several other cases in which he was previously granted IFP status and asks the Court to take judicial notice of them. See IFP Mot. at 2-3. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Notice of Incorporation and Adoption of Prior Docketed Financial Affidavit in Support of Motion to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis, [ECF No. 19], stating that he "explicitly adopts, cross references, and incorporates by reference the complete financial disclosures and supporting affidavit previously filed and docketed at ECF No. 5 as the foundational financial affidavit for his August 4, 2026, IFP appeal motion." [ECF No. 19] at 1-2. But despite his attempts to incorporate past requests for IFP status, Plaintiff's instant IFP Motion, [ECF No. 13], does not "show[] in detail [his] inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs." See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Second, Plaintiff's IFP Motion fails to claim entitlement to redress or state the issues he intends to present on appeal, as it only identifies the Court's Orders he seeks to appeal and restates the same arguments raised in his 59(e) Motion. See IFP Mot. at 4-6. Finally, even if Plaintiff's IFP Motion was procedurally sufficient under Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1), the Court would deny it nonetheless because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3). "A party demonstrates good faith by seeking appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous when examined under an objective standard." Ghee v. Retailers Nat. Bank, 271 F. App'x 858, 859 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)). "An issue is frivolous when it appears that the legal theories are indisputably meritless" and "if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact." Id. The Court certifies that this appeal is not taken in good faith. The Court previously determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims and identified the Federal Circuit as the appropriate venue in which to raise them, pursuant to the Veterans' Judicial Review Act. See [ECF No. 12] at 3. As such, Plaintiff's IFP Motion is procedurally insufficient and his appeal lacks any arguable merit. Accordingly, his IFP Motion, [ECF No. 17], is DENIED. This Order does not preclude Plaintiff from filing another motion to proceed IFP on appeal, but any such motion must be filed directly with the Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date of this Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 8/7/2026. (adn)
|
| Filing 22 Acknowledgment of Receipt of NOA from USCA re #16 Notice of Appeal, filed by Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr.. Date received by USCA: 08/05/2026. USCA Case Number: 26-12741-E. (jgo) |
| Filing 21 Plaintiff's Motion for Refund of Mistaken Filing Fee (Fed.R.Civ.1) by Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr. Responses due by 8/20/2026. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(cwc) |
| Filing 20 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM filed by Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr re #16 Notice of Appeal, filed by Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr.. No Transcript Requested. (jgo) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE of filing "Notice of Incorporation and Adoption of Prior Docketed Financial Affidavit (re #5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr) in Support of Motion to Proceed on Appeal in Forma Pauperis (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Proposed Order) (jgo) (Main Document 19 replaced on 8/6/2026) (jgo). |
| Filing 18 CLERK'S NOTICE of Mailing Pro Se Instructions to Mark T. Stinson re #16 Notice of Appeal. (apz) |
| Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Orders under appeal, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re #16 Notice of Appeal. Notice has been electronically mailed. (apz) |
| Filing 17 MOTION to Proceed as a Veteran on Appeal (IFP) and Notice of Prior Grants of In Forma Pauperis Statusp by Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr. Responses due by 8/18/2026. (apz) |
| Filing 16 Notice of Appeal re #12 Order on Report and Recommendations, 15 Order on Motion to Alter Judgment, by Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr. IFP Filed. Within fourteen days of the filing date of a Notice of Appeal, the appellant must complete the Eleventh Circuit Transcript Order Form regardless of whether transcripts are being ordered [Pursuant to FRAP 10(b)]. For information go to our FLSD website under All Forms and look for Transcript Order Form #www.flsd.uscourts.gov/forms/all-forms. (apz) |
|
Filing 15
PAPERLESS ORDER denying #13 Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Notice of Prior Grants of In Forma Pauperis Status ("Motion"). On July 31, 2026, the Court entered an Order Affirming and Adopting Report and Recommendation and Denying Motion for Leave to File Complaint ("Order"), [ECF No. 12]. In its Order, the Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims and dismissed the case. Order at 4. That same day, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion seeking relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), in which he asks the Court to vacate its prior Order and grant him leave to file his Complaint and proceed in forma pauperis. See Mot. Then, on August 3, 2026, Plaintiff paid the filing fee despite previously filing two Applications to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, [ECF Nos. 3, 5], and renewing his request to proceed in forma pauperis in the instant Motion, see Mot. at 4-5. A party "cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005). "The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact." Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999)). Here, Plaintiff has presented no new evidence. Instead, he argues that the Court committed clear legal error by "ent[ering] [] an order adopting the R&R...without reviewing, considering, or addressing Plaintiff's timely filed Objections," concluding that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, and failing to liberally construe his pro se pleadings. Mot. at 2, 5. None of these arguments provide grounds for relief under Rule 59(e). Plaintiff first argues that the Court failed to conduct a de novo review of the portions of Magistrate Judge Louis's Report to which Plaintiff objected. Mot. at 2. However, all Plaintiff points to for support is that the Court "[e]nter[ed] a final adverse ruling less than 24 hours after objections were docketed-without acknowledging or overruling those objections." But the Court expressly disclaimed that "[b]ecause Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report, the Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Louis's legal findings to which he objected." Mot. at 2. The Court also cited extensively to Plaintiff's Objections throughout its Order and clearly overruled them by virtue of adopting Magistrate Judge Louis's Report. See generally Mot. And the fact that the Court entered its Order less than 24 hours after Plaintiff filed his Objections is of no relevance; it was immediately apparent to the Court that it lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. As for Plaintiff's contention that the Court erred in concluding that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff made this exact argument in his Objections. See Obj. at 1-3. And Plaintiff's argument that the Court failed to liberally construe his pleadings is similarly unpersuasive, as Plaintiff already raised it in his Motion for Leave to File Complaint. See [ECF No. 1] at 3. It is well established that Plaintiff cannot use a Rule 59(e) Motion to relitigate old matters or raise arguments that could have been raised prior to the Court's judgment. See Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343. Finally, it is worth noting that the Court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. Indeed, "a court should inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings" and "is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking." Univ. of S. Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). Thus, regardless of Plaintiff's status or the posture of his case, lack of subject matter jurisdiction plainly warrants dismissal. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion, [ECF No. 13], is DENIED. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 8/4/2026. (adn)
|
| Filing 14 Clerks Notice of Receipt of Filing Fee received on 8/3/2026 in the amount of $ 405.00, receipt number FLS320699. (vt) |
| Filing 13 Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Notice of Prior Grants of In Forma Pauperis Status by Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr. Responses due by 8/14/2026. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(cwc) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 7/30/2026. See attached document for full details. (adn)
|
| Filing 11 Clerk's NOTICE of Compliance re DE #9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Copy of Report and Recommendation DE #9 mailed to Plaintiff with Notice of Compliance of same docketed to case. (cwc) |
| Filing 10 Plaintiff's OBJECTIONS to DE #9 Report and Recommendations by Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr. (cwc) |
| Filing 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's #1 Motion for Leave to File Complaint be denied. Objections to R&R due by 8/13/2026. The Clerk of Court is instructed to MAIL a copy of this Report and Recommendations to Mr. Stinson and file a notice of compliance on CM/ECF. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis on 7/30/2026. See attached document for full details. (mk01) |
| Filing 8 Case Reassigned to Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II. Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis no longer assigned to the case as presiding judge. Per DE #7 . (cwc) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO REASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis on 7/30/2026. See attached document for full details. (mk01)
|
| Filing 6 MOTION for Name Correction by Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr. Responses due by 8/12/2026. (cwc) |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr. Responses due by 8/12/2026. (Attachments: #1 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis)(cwc) |
| Filing 4 Consent by Pro Se Litigant (Non-Prisoner) Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr to receive Notices of Electronic Filing at email address: [email protected] (cwc) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr. Responses due by 7/9/2026. (cwc) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (cwc) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Douglas A. Collins, Joshua Jacobs, Joseph (Joe) Schmitt, United States Department of Veteran Affairs, Janet L. Yellen. Filing fees $ 405.00. IFP Filed, filed by Mark T. Restricted Filer - Stinson, Sr. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit Complaint)(cwc) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
