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.

Green v. Florida Woodlake LLC

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division

June 21, 2018

JAMARQUIS GREEN and WHITNEY FRANCOIS, Plaintiffs,
v.
FLORIDA WOODLAKE LLC d/b/a THE BENTLEY AT MAITLAND, Defendant.

          REPORTAND RECOMMENDATION

          GREGORY J. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion:

         MOTION: APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS (Doc. No. 2)

         FILED: May 15, 2018

         THEREON it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be DENIED and the case be DISMISSED.

         On May 15, 2018, pro se Plaintiffs Jamarquis Green and Whitney Francois instituted this action by filing a Complaint for Civil Case against Defendant Florida Woodlake LLC d/b/a The Bentley at Maitland. Doc. No. 1. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (the “Application”). Doc. No. 2.

         I. APPLICABLE LAW

         The 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.[1] 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; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

         Additionally, 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 Fed.Appx. 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). Federal ...


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.