United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division
PATRICK A. RIBBING, Plaintiff,
MEADOW RUN APARTMENTS, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THAI CANNON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
case is before the Court upon referral from the clerk. After
an initial review of Plaintiff's complaint, ECF Doc. 1,
the undersigned concluded it failed to establish the Court
has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims.
Thus, on August 29, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show
cause within fourteen (14) days why this case should not be
dismissed. Plaintiff has not responded to the August 29 Order
to Show Cause. This case, therefore, should be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
complaint names three (3) Defendants: (1) Meadow Run
Apartments; (2) Nancy Carlin; and (3) “all tenants and
employees on the property between” August 1 and August
23 of 2019. ECF Doc. 1 at 1, 3. Although somewhat difficult
to decipher, Plaintiff alleges that while he was in the
Escambia County Jail in August 2019: (1) someone took possession
of his vehicle, which contained evidence related to a
different claim he is bringing against police officers; (2)
the evidence “was spread out through the city and found
in a house currently under investigation in another suit
which led to further evidence collected and stored on
[site]”; and (3) “whoever tampered with the
evidence was employed by the apartment company and refused to
return it along with [Plaintiff's] vehicle.”
Id. at 4-5.
on the foregoing, Plaintiff alleges violations of the First,
Fourth, and Sixth Amendments, the Court Interpreters Act of
1978, Articles VI and X of the Louisiana Purchase, and an
unidentifiable case Plaintiff asserts is titled
“Ribbing v. Florida.” Id. at 6. As
relief, he seeks the return of his property and damages.
Id. at 5-6.
“have an independent obligation to determine whether
subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a
challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y & H
Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (citing Ruhgras AG
v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
“[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) (citation
complaint does not cite a specific statutory grant as the
basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff also fails to establish the Court has diversity
jurisdiction. “[W]hen federal jurisdiction is invoked
based upon diversity, [the complaint's allegations] must
include the citizenship of each party, so that the court is
satisfied that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as
any defendant. . . . Without such allegations, district
courts are constitutionally obligated to dismiss the action
altogether if the plaintiff does not cure the
deficiency.” Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735
F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013) (citations
omitted). Because Plaintiff's complaint does not identify
the citizenship of each party, he has failed to demonstrate
the Court has diversity jurisdiction.
complaint suggests he is attempting to invoke the Court's
federal question jurisdiction, as it cites to several
provisions of federal law. But “[e]ven a claim that
arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction if (1) ‘the alleged claim under the
Constitution or federal statutes clearly appears to be
immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining
jurisdiction,' or (2) ‘such a claim is wholly
insubstantial and frivolous.'” Butler v.
Morgan, 562 Fed.Appx. 832, 834 (11th Cir.
2014) (quoting Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v.
Sanders, 138 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir.
complaint does not present a nonfrivolous federal question.
Plaintiff cannot bring a First, Fourth or Sixth Amendment
claim against the Defendants because those amendments
regulate the actions of the federal and state governments,
not private parties such as the Defendants.
also references the Court Interpreters Act of 1978
(“CIA”), Articles VI and X of the Louisiana
Purchase and “Ribbing v. Florida.” However, he
has failed to explain how the cited statute, treaty or case
have any relation to his allegations regarding the loss of
his property. The CIA concerns the use of interpreters in
“judicial proceedings instituted by the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1827(d)(1). The Louisiana
Purchase was an early nineteenth century agreement between
the United States and France regarding the acquisition of
territory. “Ribbing v. Florida” is an
unidentifiable case; Plaintiff has neither provided a proper
citation for the case nor explained its significance.
on the foregoing, Plaintiff's purported federal claims
are frivolous and the Court lacks federal question
jurisdiction over this case. Because Plaintiff has failed to
establish this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over his
claims, his complaint should be dismissed. See Kokkonen
v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994) (“It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside
[of federal courts'] limited jurisdiction, and the burden
of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting
jurisdiction.”) (citations omitted). Accordingly, it is
this case be DISMISSED for lack of ...