COCHRAN

v.

FLORIDA SOLAR AND AIR INC.

Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED with leave to renew in compliance with this Order. It also ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause, either in the form of a written response to this Order or through an Amended Complaint, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

2.

Plaintiff's financial affidavit filed as part of the motion may satisfy the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

3.

But upon review of the pro se complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff must at this stage show cause why this Court has jurisdiction over the action that warrants in forma pauperis treatment. Specifically, the face of the complaint purports to allege a constitutional equal protection and due process complaint against a private entity, Florida Solar and Air, Inc., that is a Florida corporation. The complaint alleges that Defendant received insurance proceeds for a home repair and failed to honor the agreement for services despite payment. The complaint, however, does not allege that the entity is a governmental entity of any kind, nor any other type of entity that may be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Constitutional injuries can be asserted only against entities or persons subject to section 1983 liability. A fully private entity does not qualify. See generally Brentwood Acad. v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001) (citing Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974); National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988); Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982)).

4.

Thus on the face of the complaint the Court cannot deem the claims to be non-frivolous, in order to then grant in forma pauperis relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court is required to consider this preliminary question under section 1915, which is designed to ensure indigent litigants meaningful access to the federal courts while at the same time prevent indigent litigants from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits. See, e.g., Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). To authorize a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, the court must initially determine whether the litigant is able to pay the costs of commencing the action. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). If so, the court must then determine whether the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii).

It is this latter inquiry that prevents us from granting immediate relief on the motion at this stage of the case.