United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
GREGORY K. SAMUELS, Plaintiff,
GQ HOLDING 1329, LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS a/k/a MERSCORP; WMC MORTGAGE; FV-I; MORGAN STANLEY; and KONDAUR CAPITAL CORPORATION, Defendants.
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: June 15, 2018
THEREON it is RECOMMENDED
that the motion be DENIED and the case be DISMISSED
with leave to amend the complaint.
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.
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
(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.
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 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.
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).
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 ...