United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
JARIEL Q. HOLMES, Plaintiff,
GUARDIAN BREVARD NEWSPAPER, PROTECT OUR CHILDREN, INS, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GREGORY J. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the
MOTION: APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT
WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS (Doc. No. 2)
FILED: February 15, 2018
THEREON it is RECOMMENDED
that the motion be DENIED and the case be DISMISSED
with leave to amend the complaint.
February 15, 2018, pro se Plaintiff Jariel Q. Holmes
instituted this action by filing a Complaint against Guardian
Brevard Newspaper and Protect Our Children Ins. Doc. No. 1.
On the same day, Plaintiff filed his Application to Proceed
in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Doc. No.
United States Congress requires the district court to review
a civil complaint filed in forma pauperis
and dismiss any such complaint that is frivolous, malicious
or fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. §
1915. The mandatory language of 28 U.S.C. §
1915 applies to all proceedings in forma pauperis.
Section 1915(e)(2) provides:
Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that
may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that --
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal --
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
a district court may at any time, upon motion or sua sponte,
act to address the potential lack of subject matter
jurisdiction in a case. Herskowitz v. Reid, 187 F.
App'x 911, 912-13 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Howard v.
Lemmons, 547 F.2d 290, 290 n.1 (5th Cir. 1977)).
“[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated
to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte
whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v.
Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999).