United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE comes before the Court on a sua
sponte review of the record. Plaintiff, Robert Lee
Scott, Jr., appearing pro se, filed this action on
May 30, 2019. [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff also filed a Motion for
Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis the same day [ECF
No. 3]. Because Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma
pauperis, the screening provisions of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), are
applicable. 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. §
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). 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).
of its duty under Section 1915(e) to evaluate the claim of a
party proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is
obligated to consider sua sponte whether a claim
falls within its subject matter jurisdiction and dismiss the
claim if it finds subject matter jurisdiction to be
lack-ing. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S.Ct.
641, 648 (2012); see also Dutta-Roy v. Fain, No.
14-0280, 2014 WL 1795205, at *2 (N.D.Ga. May 5, 2014); accord
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). “Subject-matter jurisdiction . .
. refers to a tribunal's power to hear a case.”
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs
& Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region,
558 U.S. 67, 81 (2009) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted). “In a given case, a federal district
court must have at least one of three types of subject matter
jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory
grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading
Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997).
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, following a traffic stop,
the Miami-Dade Police took $4, 699 from Plaintiff. Plaintiff
contends that Defendant Officer Earl Natter told him that the
money would be “in his property” but that
Defendant Natter never gave the money to the officer who
transported Plaintiff to jail. Plaintiff attaches the arrest
affidavit from the incident, dated May 20, 2006, and an Order
for the Return of Personal Property directing that the Miami
Dade Police Department return the seized $4, 699 to
Plaintiff, dated October 1, 2008. [ECF No. 1-1].
fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. While Plaintiff appears to be
alleging that Defendant Natter took his money, he makes no
demand for the relief sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
It is unclear whether Plaintiff is asking this Court to
enforce the Florida County Court's Order directing the
return of the funds or whether he seeks some additional
relief against Defendant Natter. As a result, this action
must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a
claim. In addition, based on the limited allegations in the
Complaint, the Court is unable to ascertain whether it has
subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Based thereon,
AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED
without prejudice and CLOSED for
administrative purposes. All pending motions are
DENIED as MOOT.
 Notably, if the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over a case, the complaint is also
frivolous under Section 1915(e). See Davis v. Ryan Oaks
Apt., 357 Fed.Appx. 237, 238-39 (11th Cir. 2009) (per
 It is also unclear whether, in the
almost eleven years since the Florida County Court issued its
Order for the return of the property, Plaintiff sought to