Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Milton v. Corrie

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

May 18, 2017

Tommie Lee Milton II EL, Plaintiff
v.
Sidney Corrie, Jr., and others, Defendants.

          AMENDED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

          ROBERT N. SCOLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Tommie Lee Milton II El, formerly known as Tommie Lee Milton II©®™, proceeding pro se, filed this suit seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages. This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 16, 23, 32, 62, 66, 75, 79) and the Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50). For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court grants the motions to dismiss and denies as moot the motion for summary judgment.

         1. Background

         The Complaint alleges that, on January 24, 2013, the Plaintiff “conducted an adverse possession” of a multi-million dollar property in Fort Lauderdale, FL by filing a form titled “Return of Real Property in Attempt to Establish Adverse Possession Without Color of Title” with the Florida Department of Revenue. (Compl. at 2, ECF No. 1.) On January 25, 2013, the Plaintiff went to inspect “his potential property, ” but Defendant Miles Prince would not let him enter, called the Fort Lauderdale Police Department, and instructed Defendant Ross to break the locks that the Plaintiff had installed on the front door. (Id.) The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Prince had filed a “No Trespassing Affidavit” against the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff was subsequently arrested for burglary. (Id. at 2-3.) Two employees of the Broward County Property Appraiser's office were allegedly interviewed on local television about the matter, and the Plaintiff claims that they defamed him and made false accusations against him. (Id. at 3.) The Plaintiff alleges that he was later arrested a second time on a “fraudulent charge” in retaliation for his adverse possession of the Fort Lauderdale property. (Id. at 4.) The Plaintiff alleges that the title to the Fort Lauderdale property was later conveyed in violation of the Plaintiff's due process and equal protection rights. (Id.)

         The Complaint states that “[t]he plaintiff relies on Attachment A for his Statements of the Case and Facts. All of the factual allegations the plaintiff complained of are true and correct at law due to the defendant's non-response to the plaintiff's private, foreign, administrative judgment.” (Id. at 7.) Attachment A is a document labeled “Affidavit in the Nature of Notice of Intent to Sue, ” signed by the Plaintiff. (Id. at 11-19). The affidavit sets forth many of the allegations included in the Complaint, and states that “the affiant gives the defendants 30 days to rebut this foregoing affidavit. . .Failure to respond and/or properly respond to each point of this affidavit within 30 days will result in agreement with all of the facts alleged herein and will result in default in favor of the affiant.” (Id. at 16.) According to the Certificate of Service attached to the affidavit, the affidavit was served on the Defendants in this matter. (Id. at 19.) The Plaintiff subsequently sent the Defendants a “Notice of Default” and a “Final Notice of Default and Estoppel” because they failed to respond to the affidavit. (ECF No. 1-2).

         The Complaint lists a number of purported causes of action, including civil theft, defamation, unfair and deceptive business trade practices, false accusations, emotional distress, retaliation, racial discrimination, false imprisonment, lost wages, and pain and suffering. (Compl. at 1, ECF No. 1.) The Complaint asserts that this Court has diversity jurisdiction because the Plaintiff is a Washitaw Moor and is therefore a “Private Citizen, ” not a citizen of the state of Florida. (Id. at 2.) Under the heading “Federal Question Jurisdiction and Brief Summary of the Case and Facts, ” the Complaint makes various allegations, including that the Defendants violated the Plaintiff's constitutional rights under the 5th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments. (Id. at 2-6.)

         The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (See, e.g., Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 32.)

         2. Legal Standard

         A district court must have at least one of three types of subject-matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction pursuant to a specific statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction; or (3) diversity jurisdiction. Butler v. Morgan, 562 Fed. App'x. 832, 834 (11th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). “The burden for establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction rests with the party bringing the claim.” Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005). Diversity jurisdiction exists where the matter in controversy exceeds $75, 000 and the action is between:

(1) citizens of different States;
(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, except that the district courts shall not have original jurisdiction under this subsection of an action between citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign State who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States and are domiciled in the same State;
(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state. . .as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.