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, Danize Diaz,
appearing pro se, filed this action on August 16,
2019. [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis the same day (the
“IFP Motion”) [ECF No. 3]. Because Plaintiff
has moved to proceed in forma pauperis and has not
otherwise paid a filing fee, 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 § 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
lacking. 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 appears to allege that Defendants
somehow violated her rights after a block was placed on her
school record for failure to return books. [ECF Nos. 1, 7].
Based on the limited allegations in the Complaint, the Court
is unable to ascertain whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff fails to allege (1)
a specific federal statute conferring jurisdiction, (2) a
cognizable federal claim such that this Court would have
federal question jurisdiction, or (3) diversity of
citizenship between the parties such that this Court would
have diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Complaint is
subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Based thereon, it is
AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED
without prejudice and CLOSED for
 The IFP Motion was denied
without prejudice for appearing inconsistent as it indicated
that Plaintiff worked for the county library system but also
represented that Plaintiff earned no salary. [ECF No. 6].
Plaintiff has not refiled her IFP Motion.
Notably, if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
a case, the complaint is also frivolous under § 1915(e).
See Davis v. Ryan Oaks Apt., 357 Fed.Appx. 237,