United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTKICT JUDGE
CAUSE comes before the Court on a sua
sponte review of the record. Plaintiff Rook, Inc.,
appearing pro se, filed this action on December 13, 2017 [ECF
No. 1]. Plaintiff failed to pay a filing fee or move to
proceed in forma pauperis.
the Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee, the Court
will apply the screening provisions of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e). Pursuant to that statute, the court is
permitted to dismiss a suit “any time  the court
determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
Id. § 1915(e)(2).
standards governing dismissals for failure to state a claim
under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) are the same as those
governing dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252
(11th Cir. 2008). To state a claim for relief, a pleading
must contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction . . .; (2) a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief
sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. To survive a motion to
dismiss, a claim “must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“[T]he pleadings are construed broadly, ”
Levine v. World Fin. Network Nat'l Bank, 437
F.3d 1118, 1120 (11th Cir. 2006), and the allegations in the
complaint are viewed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140
F.3d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 1998). In reviewing the Complaint,
the Court must apply the “liberal construction to which
pro se pleadings are entitled.” Holsomback v.
White, 133 F.3d 1382, 1386 (11th Cir. 1998). However,
liberal construction cannot serve as a substitute to
establishing a valid cause of action. See GJR Invs., Inc.
v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir.
1998) overruled on other grounds as recognized by Randall
v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010). At bottom, the
question is not whether the claimant “will ultimately
prevail . . . but whether his complaint [is] sufficient to
cross the federal court's threshold.” Skinner
v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 530 (2011).
Complaint utilizes a form created by the Administrative
Office of the Courts and available on the United States
Courts' website titled “Complaint of Judicial
Misconduct or Disability.” However, in completing the
form, Plaintiff does not accuse a judge or a court of
misconduct. Indeed, Plaintiff fails to even identify a
defendant. As a result, it is unclear what relief Plaintiff
is seeking. There is nothing to suggest that this Court has
original or diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
claims. In addition, the Court cannot determine how and to
what extent Plaintiff has been injured or the legal basis
upon which he seeks relief. As a result this action must be
thereon, it is
AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This action is
CLOSED for administrative purposes and all
pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
 The Court notes that even if the PLRA
does not apply because Plaintiff has not formally filed a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court still
has the authority to sua sponte dismiss a claim
where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Walker
v. Sun Trust Bank of Thomasville, GA, 363 Fed.App'x
11, 16 (11th Cir. 2010).
 Plaintiff is a corporation but appears
to be appearing pro se. While Plaintiff references Aterrius
Cunning-ham as its attorney in the civil cover sheet [ECF No.
1-1], there is no record of Mr. Cunningham being admitted to
practice law in Florida or this Court. Corporations are not
permitted to appear in a proceeding without counsel. See
Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th
Cir. 1985) (“a corporation is an artificial entity that
can act only through agents, cannot appear pro se, ...