DADA

v.

ANDROSS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon sua sponte review of a pro se Complaint filed on July 25, 2023. See Compl., [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (“IFP Application”), [ECF No. 3]. Upon screening the Complaint and reviewing the applicable law, the Court finds that it may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Accordingly, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint that makes clear the Court possesses jurisdiction over this dispute.¹

LEGAL STANDARD

A federal court is required to conduct an initial screening of all complaints filed by prisoners and plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a), 1915(e)(2); Taliaferro v. United States, 677 F. App’x 536, 537 (11th Cir. 2017) (“[D]istrict courts have the power to screen complaints filed by all IFP litigants, prisoners and non-prisoners alike.” (citing Rowe v. Shake, 196 F. 3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999))). During the initial screening, the court must

Additionally, the court must dismiss the complaint (or any portion of the complaint) that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or which seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. “A pro se pleading is held to a less stringent standard than a pleading drafted by an attorney and is liberally construed.” Waldman v. Conway, 871 F. 3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2017); see also Torres v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 734 F. App’x 688, 691 (11th Cir. 2018) (“Liberal construction, in more concrete terms, means that federal courts must sometimes

look beyond the labels used in a pro se party’s complaint and focus on the content and substance of the allegations.”).

A claim is frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it is “without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F. 3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Bilal v. Driver, 251 F. 3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001)).

In addition to its obligation to screen a complaint filed by a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must always assure it has jurisdiction over a case and “must inquire into jurisdiction whenever the possibility that jurisdiction does not exist arises.” Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 760 F. 2d 1249, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985).

In other words, it is the Court’s responsibility to “zealously insure that jurisdiction exists over a case.” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F. 3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).

Under section 1332, federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions

between citizens of different states or foreign countries where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff brings two claims in this action: (1) a claim for breach of fiduciary duties; and (2) a claim for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.2 Compl. at 6–7. Plaintiff invokes the Court’s diversity

So, Plaintiff must meet the requirements of diversity jurisdiction for this case to proceed. It is unclear however, whether this Court has diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s form Complaint contains a section that asks him to describe why the amount in controversy has been met. Compl. at 3. In response, he states he is seeking “[t]he maximum daily amount of any civil penalty of could not [sic] exceeding $1,000,000 or or [sic] 1 percent of the total assets of such member bank as provided by 12 U.S. Code § 504.” Compl. at 3–4.

However, this provision is yet another federal statute that does not confer a private right of action. Instead, 12 U.S.C. § 504 is a statute governing civil penalties the government may impose on banks and affiliated parties. And Plaintiff’s third “count” relating to damages contains no measure of his damages whatsoever—it simply includes general statements, such as alleging that Defendants have “caused irreparable damages to plaintiff

[sic] marriage and family life.” Therefore, the Court is left to speculate as to whether the amount in controversy requirement has been met in this matter and an amended complaint is warranted.³

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff is instructed to follow the directives articulated in this Order if Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action.

Thus, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. On or before August 11, 2023, Plaintiff must file an Amended Complaint that clarifies the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction.

2. Plaintiff is warned that failure to file the amended complaint on time and in compliance with this Court’s Order shall result in dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See FED. R. CIv. P. 41(b).

3. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to administratively close this case. Plaintiff is, in addition, warned that failure to file his amended complaint on time and in compliance with this Order shall result in this case remaining closed. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 28th day of July, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE