PERSON

v.

CAMILLUS HOUSE INC.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record.

On February 8, 2023, Plaintiff Mark A. Person (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint, ECF No. , and on February 9, 2023, filed an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis”), ECF No. . Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, has not paid the required filing fee, and therefore the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) are applicable. Pursuant to the statute, courts are 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

The Court must first assure itself that it has subject matter jurisdiction. “A federal court not only has the power but also the obligation at any time to 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) (citations omitted).

As such, a “district court may act sua sponte to address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time.” Herskowitz v. Reid, 187 F. App’x 911, 912-13 (11th Cir. 2006).

This is because federal courts are “empowered to hear only those cases within the judicial power of the United States as defined by Article III of the Constitution, and which have been entrusted to them by a jurisdictional grant authorized by Congress.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F. 3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.”). “[O]nce a federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d at 410 (alteration added). “A district court can hear a case only if it has at least one of three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under 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).” Thermoset Corp. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 849 F. 3d 1313, 1317 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc. 844 F. 3d 1299, 1305 (11th Cir. 2016)) (internal quotations omitted).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,¹ has filed his Complaint with the Court and alleged that

“[a]fter suffering significant loses [sic] at the hand of Camillus House Inc. I had no other options but to pursue legal actions.” See ECF No. at ¶ 12. Among other allegations, Plaintiff states that he submitted a grievance to Camillus House Inc. on the harassment from the other client in his

Thus, the allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the pro se plaintiff. See Hill v. White, 321 F. 3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003).

However, a pro se filer “still must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Rodriguez, 775 F. App’x at 602 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and Moon v. Newsome, 863 F. 2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989)). A district court is not required to “rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Rodriguez, 794 F. App’x at 603 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Case No. 23-cv-20510-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

room, but that nothing was done to alleviate the situation. /d. at § 8. Plaintiff alleged that he believes nothing was done “because the client was a white male. /d. He does not assert jurisdiction under any federal statute which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race. There is no assertion of jurisdiction in the Complaint. Because Plaintiff has not articulated jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant, federal question jurisdiction, and does not assert that diversity jurisdiction exists, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. This Case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma Pauperis, ECF No. , is DENIED as moot.

3. The Clerk shall CLOSE the case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on February 9, 2023. +

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Mark A. Person 9825 NE 2nd Avenue Suite 531276 Miami, FL 33153

PRO SE