DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
DAMON JOHN, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TERRITORIAL PUBLIC 
DEFENDER and DAVID JACKSON,  
Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)     Civil No. 2011–29 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
Damon John 
Golden Grove Prison 
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 
 
Pro se. 
 
ORDER 
 
GÓMEZ, J. 
 
Before the Court is plaintiff Damon John’s (“John”) petition for 
a writ of mandamus.  John seeks a writ instructing the “Public 
Defender” and David Jackson, the “Public Investigator,” to turn over 
certain information. 
 
John’s petition for a writ of mandamus was filed on March 2, 
2011.  The same day he filed his petition, John also filed an 
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On June 7, 2011, 
Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller denied John’s application to proceed in 
forma pauperis without prejudice. 
 
The docket does not indicate that any other actions were taken by 
John.  There is no indication that John ever served either of the 
named defendants.  Additionally, there is no record of a filing fee 
Case: 3:11-cv-00029-CVG-RM   Document #: 5   Filed: 02/12/14   Page 1 of 2
John v. Terr. Public Defender et al. 
Civil No. 2011–29 
Order 
Page 2 
having been paid or of a second motion for leave to proceed in forma 
pauperis. 
 
“[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 
(“Therefore, once the filing fee requirement is satisfied (either 
through remittance of the filing fee or the district court's grant of 
the plaintiff's IFP application), the filing date will relate back to 
the date on which the clerk received plaintiff's papers.”)  Because 
John has not paid a filing fee, nor has he been granted permission to 
proceed in forma pauperis, there is no properly filed petition upon 
which the Court could rule. 
 
The premises considered, it is hereby 
 
ORDERED that John’s petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED 
without prejudice; and it is further 
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this case.1 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
CURTIS V. GÓMEZ 
District Judge 
 
                     
1 The Court notes that on March 31, 2012, the Magistrate ordered John to file 
proof of service on the defendants or to show cause why the action should not 
be dismissed for lack of timely service no later than April 19, 2012.  The 
March 31, 2012, order stated that a failure to file proof of service or to 
show cause by the deadline might result in dismissal of John’s action. To 
date, John has not responded. 
 
Because the Court holds that there is no properly filed petition, it need not 
reach the issue raised in the Magistrate’s March 31, 2012, order. 
Case: 3:11-cv-00029-CVG-RM   Document #: 5   Filed: 02/12/14   Page 2 of 2