# Lay v. Military Sealift Command

> District Court, S.D. Florida · August 12, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10120866

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Florida
- **Decided:** August 12, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10120866

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that Rule 8(a)(2)’s pleading standard “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-22548-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

LUIS LAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND,
et al.,

Defendants.
________________________________/

ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis,
ECF No. [3] (the “Motion”), filed in conjunction with the Complaint, ECF No. [1] (the
“Complaint”). Plaintiff Luis Lay (“Plaintiff” or “Lay”) has not paid the required filing fee and,
thus, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) are applicable. The Court has carefully
reviewed the Complaint, the Motion, the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised in the
premises. For the reasons that follow, the Complaint is dismissed, and the Motion is denied as
moot.
Fundamental to our conception and system of justice is that the courthouse doors will not
be closed to persons based on their inability to pay a filing fee. Congress has provided that a court
“may authorize the commencement . . . or prosecution of any suit, action or proceeding . . . or
appeal therein, without the prepayment of fees . . . therefore, by a person who submits an affidavit
that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such
fees . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 n.1
(11th Cir. 2004) (interpreting statute to apply to all persons seeking to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”)). Permission to proceed in forma pauperis is committed to the sound discretion of the
court. Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Thomas v. Chattahoochee
Judicial Circuit, 574 F. App’x 916, 916 (11th Cir. 2014) (“A district court has wide discretion in

ruling on an application for leave to proceed IFP.”). However, “proceeding in forma pauperis is a
privilege, not a right.” Camp, 798 F.2d at 437.
In addition to the required showing that the litigant, because of poverty, is unable to pay
for the court fees and costs, Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1307, upon a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis the Court is required to examine whether “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). If the Court
determines that the complaint satisfies any of the three enumerated circumstances under Section
1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss the complaint.
A pleading in a civil action must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although a complaint “does not need
detailed factual allegations,” it must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that Rule 8(a)(2)’s
pleading standard “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation”). Nor can a complaint rest on “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (alteration in original)).
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Importantly, “[p]ro se
pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and [are] liberally
construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). “But the leniency
accorded pro se litigants does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party or to
rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading to sustain an action.” Matthews, Wilson & Matthews, Inc.

v. Capital City Bank, 614 F. App’x 969, 969 n.1 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty.
of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled in part on other grounds by
Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 709 (11th Cir. 2010)). Even under the relaxed pleading standard
afforded to pro se litigants, see Abele v. Tolbert, 130 F. App’x 342, 343 (11th Cir. 2005), the
Complaint fails here.
First, there is no adequate basis alleged upon which the Court may properly exercise
jurisdiction in this case. 1 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) (footnote
call numbers and citations omitted). 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., 168 F.3d at 409 (quoting Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th
Cir. 1994)). Accordingly, “once a federal court determines that it is without subject matter

1 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution
and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal citations omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this
limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.”
Id. (citing Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8, 11 (1799) and McNutt v. Gen. Motors
Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-183 (1936)). “Indeed, it is well settled that a federal court is obligated
to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am.
Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). “The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a
claim involves the court’s competency to consider a given type of case, and cannot be waived or otherwise
conferred upon the court by the parties. Otherwise, a party could work a wrongful extension of federal
jurisdiction and give courts power the Congress denied them.” Id. (quoting Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line
R.R., 678 F.2d 992, 1000-01 (11th Cir. 1982)) (internal quotations omitted).
jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.” Id. at 410. Here, Lay asserts that the basis for the
Court’s jurisdiction is “Myself still on control; monitory [sic]; robery [sic]; torture; by more of one
agency’s federal and state on one big setup creating by them against myself.” Id. at 3. This
statement, however, does not sufficiently establish that jurisdiction exists in this case. It is

axiomatic that the Court cannot consider Plaintiff’s claims without proper jurisdiction. See Steel
Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 84 (U.S. 1998) (“In a long and venerable
line of cases, this Court has held that, without proper jurisdiction, a court cannot proceed at all, but
can only note the jurisdictional defect and dismiss the suit.”) (citations omitted).
Second, the Complaint must be dismissed because it fails to state a claim. The Court cannot
discern any actual claims asserted by Lay. Although Lay names the Military Sealift Command,
U.S. Department of Defense, Miami Police Department, and Miami and Hialeah Section 8
Department as defendants, there are no allegations with respect to any of the defendants in the
Complaint. Lay simply alleges in his Statement of Claim that
On board of ship flag as U.S. Navy was torurate [sic] with illegal injection that final
destroy my never [sic] system erraise [sic] memorys [sic] and add to my body some
tracking devices that kill vision; alteray [sic] moscule [sic]; etc. from 1990 up to
today’s day all full seve [sic] and nation [sic] way inside my body.

ECF No. [1] at 4. In addition, Lay attaches several pages of allegations regarding his military
service, see ECF No. [1-1] at 14-16, in which it appears that Lay is seeking payment of salary he
claims to be owed. He also attaches several documents to the Complaint, including correspondence
from the U.S. Department of Labor, a partial printout of a docket sheet for a case before Judge
Cooke, a boarding pass, a letter to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles,
a receipt from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, his voter registration, and
correspondence from the Social Security Administration. See ECF No. [1-1]. However, there is no
explanation of how these documents relate to the Complaint. Even though the Court liberally
Case No. 22-cv-22548-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

construes pro se pleadings, the Court is not free to construct causes of action. Here, the Court is
unable to ascertain any claims for relief from the Complaint.
Therefore, as the Court is unable to ascertain any plausible claim for relief—and it does
not have the authority to consider claims without jurisdiction—the instant action must be
dismissed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. Plaintiffs Motion, ECF No. [3], is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 11, 2022.

BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Luis Lay, pro se
2520 SW 22nd Street
Suite #2-197
Miami, FL 33145-3438

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10120866. Public record. Not legal advice.