an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” GJR Invs. v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir.1998) (citation and internal citations omitted). Once a pro se litigant is in court, “he is subject to the relevant laws and rules of the court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.1989). The district court properly denied Smith’s motion to compel non-party discovery because Smith did not submit proof of service to the district court. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 45(b). In refusing to subpoena witnesses, the district court acted within its discretion because Smith had not tendered the fees that must be paid before service of a subpoena is complete. See Lloyd v. McKendree, 749 F.2d 705, 706-07 (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Fed. R.Civ.P. 45(b)(1). A prisoner’s presence
holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391 holding that 28 usc  1915c which in 1996 was redesignated as  1915d does not abrogate the requirement that fees must be tendered before service of the subpoena holding that fees for fees are not reimbursable under 28 usc  593f1 holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction   depends upon the district court finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 usc  1330a and proper service under 28 usc  1608 holding that 28 usc  2636c did not modify the filing requirement in 19 usc  1516aa2a