DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
 
JAYNELLE BURTON, 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
COLLECTIONS ETC, 
 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)
 
 
 
 
 
Civil No. 2011–101 
 
 
APPEARANCES: 
 
Jaynelle Burton 
St. Thomas, VI  
Pro se plaintiff, 
 
Collections ETC 
Unrepresented entity. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
GÓMEZ, J. 
 
 
The plaintiff, Jaynelle Burton (“Burton”), initiated this 
action on September 14, 2011. Subsequently, the Magistrate Judge 
ordered Burton to file an amended complaint by January 7, 2012, 
specifically alleging the factual basis for this Court’s 
jurisdiction. Burton failed to file an amended complaint. The 
Magistrate ordered Burton to show cause at a hearing, scheduled to 
take place on July 5, 2012, why this action should not be dismissed 
for lack of prosecution. Burton did not appear at the hearing. 
Case: 3:11-cv-00101-CVG-RM   Document #: 10   Filed: 03/10/14   Page 1 of 3
Burton v. Collections ETC 
Civil No. 2011-101 
Order 
Page 2 
 
 
 
The Magistrate then rescheduled the hearing for August 1, 2012. 
Burton personally appeared for this hearing. At the conclusion of 
the hearing, the Magistrate ordered Burton, not later than September 
1, 2012, to submit an amended complaint including allegations 
asserting a factual basis for jurisdiction. The Magistrate also 
scheduled another hearing for September 5, 2012.  
 
There is no record of Burton paying a filing fee or of this Court 
granting her permission to proceed in forma pauperis in the 
above-captioned matter. Burton failed to file an amended complaint. 
Burton also failed to appear at the September 5, 2012, hearing. To 
date, Burton has not responded to the Court’s December 8, 2011, Order. 
Burton has also failed to timely serve process. 
 
“[A] complaint is not formally filed until the filing fee is 
paid. . . .” McDowell v. Del. State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir. 
1996).  Paying the filing fee, or receiving permission to proceed 
in forma pauperis, is necessary to commence an action. See id. at 
191 (stating that a filing fee requirement may be satisfied “either 
through remittance of the filing fee or the district court's grant 
of the plaintiff's IFP application”). Burton has not paid a filing 
fee, nor has she been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis.  
As such, there is no petition which has been “filed” such that this 
Court could rule on it. 
 
 
Case: 3:11-cv-00101-CVG-RM   Document #: 10   Filed: 03/10/14   Page 2 of 3
Burton v. Collections ETC 
Civil No. 2011-101 
Order 
Page 3 
 
 
 
The premises considered, it is hereby 
 
ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 
it is further 
 
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this case. 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
District Judge 
Case: 3:11-cv-00101-CVG-RM   Document #: 10   Filed: 03/10/14   Page 3 of 3