United States District Court, S.D. Florida
NICKCOLES T. LOVE, Plaintiff,
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., Defendants.
BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Nickoles T.
Love's (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis, ECF No.  (the “IFP
Motion”). Plaintiff filed this action against
Defendants Florida Department of Revenue and Carrol Eaton on
July 17, 2019. See Compl., ECF No. . For the
reasons that follow, the IFP Motion is denied and this matter
is dismissed without prejudice.
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only
that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is
not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)
(internal citations omitted). “It is to be presumed
that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the
burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party
asserting jurisdiction.” Id. (citing
Turner v. Bank of N. Am., 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8, 11
(1799) and McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.,
298 U.S. 178, 182-183 (1936)). “Indeed, it 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). “The
jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a claim
involves the court's competency to consider a given type
of case and cannot be waived or otherwise conferred upon the
court by the parties. Otherwise, a party could work a
wrongful extension of federal jurisdiction and give courts
power the Congress denied them.” Id. (quoting
Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 678 F.2d 992,
1000-01 (11th Cir. 1982)) (internal quotations omitted).
district court can hear a case only if it has at least one of
three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction
under 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).” Thermoset Corp. v. Bldg. Materials Corp.
of Am., 849 F.3d 1313, 1317 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting
PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc. 844 F.3d 1299, 1305
(11th Cir. 2016)) (internal quotations omitted). With regard
to federal question jurisdiction, the district courts have
“original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C § 1331 (2012). To determine
whether a cause of action “arises under” federal
law for purposes of Section 1331, the district court applies
the “well-pleaded complaint rule, ” which
requires that the Court examine “what necessarily
appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own
claim[.]” Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air
Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 (2002)
(citation omitted). As such, “federal jurisdiction
generally exists ‘only when a federal question is
presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded
complaint.'” Id. at 831 (quoting
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392
a “district court may act sua sponte to
address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any
time.” Herskowitz v. Reid, 187 Fed.Appx. 911,
912-13 (11th Cir. 2006) (footnote call numbers and citations
omitted). This is because federal courts are
“‘empowered to hear only those cases within the
judicial power of the United States as defined by Article III
of the Constitution,' and which have been entrusted to
them by a jurisdictional grant authorized by Congress.”
Univ. of S. Ala., 168 F.3d at 409 (quoting
Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir.
1994)). Accordingly, “once a federal court determines
that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is
powerless to continue.” Id. at 410.
the Court has determined it is without a basis to proceed
because the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff
asserts several legal conclusions and merely states that
“Defendant is in violation of the due process
clause.” See ECF No. , at 2. However, the Complaint
is devoid of any factual support for such legal conclusions.
Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court cannot
glean the nature of Plaintiffs' claims nor are there any
facts related to those alleged claims. Therefore, the
Complaint does not contain “sufficient factual matter
to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570) (quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiffs Complaint must be dismissed because it fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Complaint, ECF No. , is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. The IFP Motion, ECF No. , is
DENIED AS MOOT
3. The Clerk is instructed to CLOSE this