United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division
ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND DENYING ALL PENDING MOTIONS
FEDRlCO A. MORENO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Danize Diaz's
Complaint for a Civil Case, Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, and Emergency
Motion. The Court conducted a sua sponte examination
of the record, and for the reasons set forth below, this case
is DISMISSED and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
Simply put, this case does not state a federal cause of
action; but it may belong in a state court where issues
concerning parental and spousal rights are decided.
in forma pauperis Complaint asserts as a basis for
federal question jurisdiction that Defendant William Orlando
Diaz is violating Plaintiffs: (1) "access to [her]
house"; (2) "parental full custody rights";
(3) "parental rights to [her] children['s]
schools"; and (4) "rights to [her] mail and
packages." The in forma pauperis Complaint
further alleges that Defendant is violating Plaintiffs:
"rights of important documents, and mail, and religious
packages"; "rights to enter [her] children's
school and activities"; and "rights to sleep on
[her] bed in [her] bedroom."
asks the Court for certain relief, including recovery of her:
(1) "OBGYN medical fees for pap-smears"; (2)
"Dade County Health Insurance"; and (3)
"contact lenses and eye glasses." As another basis
for relief, Plaintiff asserts that "[a]limony and child
support divorce proceedings [are] being delayed on
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, deriving their
authority from both constitutional and legislative sources.
See U.S. Const. Art. Ill; 28 U.S.C. § 1331;
Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 207-08
(1993). It is exclusively the power of Congress to restrict
the jurisdiction of federal courts to adjudicate certain
kinds of cases. See Keene Corp., 508 U.S. at 207.
Regarding domestic relations cases, the Supreme Court has
emphasized that "[t]he whole subject of the domestic
relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to
the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United
States." Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v.
Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004) (citation omitted),
abrogated on other grounds, Lexmark Int 7, Inc.
v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 126-27
(2014). "Consistent with this allocation of authority,
the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to
state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic
relations." United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S.
744, 767 (2013); see also Ingram v. Hayes, 866 F.2d
368, 371 (11th Cir. 1988) (noting other circuit courts
"willingly apply the domestic relations exception to
federal questions and constitutional issues involving
intra-family disputes") (per curiam); Kirby v.
Mellenger, 830 F.2d 176, 177-78 (11th Cir. 1987)
("As a general rule, the federal courts refuse to hear
suits for divorce and alimony, child custody actions,
disputes over visitation rights, suits to establish paternity
and to obtain child support, and actions to enforce
separation or divorce decrees still subject to state court
modification.") (per curiam) (internal citation
and quotations omitted).
Plaintiff asserts as a basis for federal question
jurisdiction that Defendant is violating Plaintiffs: (1)
"access to [her] house"; (2) "parental full
custody rights"; (3) "parental rights to [her]
children['s] schools"; and (4) "rights to [her]
mail and packages." (D.E. 1 at 3.) Simply put,
Plaintiffs claims do not raise any federal questions.
Furthermore, the rights that Plaintiff claims have been
violated are the province of state courts, and for this
reason, should Plaintiff seek to vindicate the alleged
violation of her rights, she must do so in state court. For
these reasons, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction and the case must be dismissed.
the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case, the
in forma pauperis Complaint should be dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Section
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) provides that a court "shall dismiss
[an in forma pauperis action] at any time if the
court determines that... the action ... is frivolous or
malicious." According to the United States Supreme
Court, a complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an
arguable basis in law or in fact." Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (discussing
dismissals under former section 1915(d), which contained the
same language as current section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)). A court
may dismiss claims under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) where the
claims rest on an indisputably meritless legal theory or are
comprised of factual contentions that are clearly baseless.
Id. at 327.
issues raised by Plaintiff regarding her home and her
children are not necessarily "frivolous" in the
regular definition because they are important; however, they
do not give this federal court jurisdiction. Accordingly, it
that this case is DISMISSED, and all pending motions are
DENIED AS MOOT. This case is CLOSED