BROWN
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this pro bono appeal, a plaintiff sought to enjoin the Florida Department of Revenue from garnishing his Uber earnings in the federal district court. The court dismissed the action for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the state-law garnishment claim could not be brought in federal court.
The court held that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state-law claim to enjoin the garnishment of his Uber earnings. The court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice and denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice.
[1] A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over state law claims seeking to enjoin state agency actions, such as garnishment of earnings.
[2] A district court reviews a magistrate judge's report and recommendation de novo in the absence of objections.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The court reviews the legal conclusions de novo in the absence of an objection.”
Establishes the standard of review applied by the district court to the magistrate judge's recommendations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed an amended complaint seeking to enjoin the defendant, in her role as Director of the Florida Department of Revenue's Office of Chi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff's renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 11) and the amended complaint (Dkt. 10). The United States Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the motion be denied without prejudice and that the amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Dkt. 12. The time for filing objections has passed.
The Court reviews the legal conclusions de novo in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). The magistrate judge found that the amended complaint (Dkt. 10) fails to allege a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's sole claim seeks to enjoin Defendant, in her role as Director at the Florida Department of Revenue, Office of Child Support Enforcement ("FDOR"), from garnishing Plaintiff's Uber earnings. Dkt. 10, Dkt. 12 at 3. The report explains why this state claim may not be brought
in federal court. Dkt. 12 at 7–12. After conducting an independent examination of the file, the Court agrees with the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation and rules as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 12) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and made a part of this order.
2. Plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 11) is denied without prejudice.
3. Plaintiff's amended complaint (Dkt. 10) is dismissed without prejudice, subject to the right of Plaintiff to file his exemptions to garnishment with the court that issued the writ of garnishment.
4. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on May 21, 2024.
WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Plaintiff, pro se