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.

Samuels v. GQ Holding 1329, LLC

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

July 26, 2018

GREGORY K. SAMUELS, Plaintiff,
v.
GQ HOLDING 1329, LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS a/k/a MERSCORP; WMC MORTGAGE; FV-I; MORGAN STANLEY; and KONDAUR CAPITAL CORPORATION, Defendants.

          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: June 15, 2018
THEREON it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be DENIED and the case be DISMISSED with leave to amend the complaint.

         On June 15, 2018, pro se Plaintiff Gregory K. Samuels instituted this action by filing a Complaint against various defendants. Doc. No. 1. On the same date, Plaintiff filed his Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (the “Application”). Doc. No. 2.

         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)).[2] “[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 courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; therefore, the Court must inquire into its subject matter jurisdiction, even when a party has not challenged it. Id.

         The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida also govern proceedings in forma pauperis. Pursuant to Local Rule 4.07(a), the Clerk dockets, assigns to a judge, and then transmits to the judge cases commenced in forma pauperis. The district court assigns to United States Magistrate Judges the supervision and determination of all civil pretrial proceedings and motions. Local Rule 6.01(c)(18). With respect to any involuntary dismissal or other final order that would be appealable if entered by a district judge, the United States Magistrate Judge may make recommendations to the district judge. Id. The Court may dismiss the case if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious under section 1915, or may enter such other orders as shall seem appropriate. Local Rule 4.07(a).

         The Complaint in this case appears to be based upon a mortgage foreclosure proceeding, but Plaintiff does not provide any information regarding the case name or court in which it was litigated in. Doc. No. 1. If it was litigated in state court, then it may be precluded by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that federal courts, other than the United States Supreme Court, have no authority to review the final judgments of state courts.” Bey v. Ninth Judicial Circuit, No. 6:11-cv-510-18DAB, 2011 WL ...


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.