Benford v. Ferman Chevrolet and Mazda of Tampa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

LATREASE BENFORD,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 8:24-cv-1284-TPB-AEP

FERMAN CHEVROLET AND

MAZDA OF TAMPA,

Defendants.

/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Latrease Benford’s Motion to

Proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action

against Defendants Ferman Chevrolet and Mazda of Tampa. For the foregoing

reasons, it is recommended Plaintiff’s motion be denied without prejudice.

I. Background

On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed her first Complaint asserting that Defendants

had not “acted in good faith, result[ing] in [Plaintiff’s] injuries.” (Doc. 1, at 4).

Notably, Plaintiff’s Complaint contained no further information concerning the

circumstances giving rise to her claim. Because it was facially insufficient and largely

inadequate, the Complaint was dismissed sua sponte without prejudice, with leave to

amend. (Doc. 2).

On June 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint with some, but overall

insignificant, changes. Plaintiff now asserts that Defendants engaged in “clogging of

inalienable equitable rights by way of non-performance, holding of securities.” (Doc.

3). In addition, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief from the Court “to attain and deliver

property” back to her, as well as $386,000. (Doc. 3). However, Plaintiff does not

explain what property is at issue or assert any specific details concerning Defendants’

alleged “non-performance.”

II. Legal Standard

The clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil

action, suit, or proceeding in such court to pay a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

However, a court may, upon a finding of indigency, authorize the commencement of

an action without requiring the prepayment of fees or security. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

When an application to proceed in forma pauperis is filed, the court must review the

case and dismiss it sua sponte if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim

upon 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). District courts maintain

broad discretion in determining whether to grant or deny an application to proceed in

forma pauperis. See Pace v. Evans, 709 F.2d 1428, 1429 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).

An action is frivolous where the allegations lack an arguable basis either in law

or fact. Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).

Accordingly, where the court determines from the face of the complaint that the factual

allegations are clearly baseless or the legal theories are without merit, the court may

dismiss the complaint before service of process. Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th

Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (citations omitted).

Further, to state a claim, a pleading must contain a short and plain statement

of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction; a short and plain statement of the claim

showing the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a)(1)-(3). Failure to state a claim is governed by the same standard as

dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112

F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997); Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir.

2008) (citation omitted). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate if the facts,

as pleaded, fail to state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Aschcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).

A “plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief

requires 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)

(internal quotations omitted); see also Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250,

1262 (11th Cir. 2004) (explaining that “conclusory allegations, unwarranted

deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent

dismissal”) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Moreover, federal courts are

courts of limited jurisdiction and, thus, have an obligation to inquire into their subject

matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking. Kirkland v. Midland Mortg.

Co., 243 F.3d 1277, 1279–80 (11th Cir. 2001); See Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co.,

168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated

to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.”).

Specifically, federal district courts will have original jurisdiction over cases in which

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the case is between citizens of

different states or citizens of the United States and citizens of a foreign state. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332.

In reviewing a complaint, courts hold pro se pleadings to a less stringent

standard and therefore construe the complaint more liberally.1 Tannenbaum v. U.S.,

148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (“Pro se pleadings are held to a less

stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally

construed.”).

III. Discussion

In her Complaint, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to show that she

can assert a viable federal claim. Simply put, Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks factual

allegations that provide the Court with enough information to determine what she is

claiming. The entirety of Plaintiff’s claim rests on the conclusory allegation that her

“inalienable rights” were injured by the “non-performance/default” of Defendants.

(Doc. 3). As can best be understood by this Court, Plaintiff may be attempting to assert

a breach of contract action against Defendants. However, Plaintiff has failed to allege

facts sufficient to support this assertion and her accompanying damages demand; her

1 Although courts afford liberal construction to pro se litigants’ pleadings, litigants appearing pro se

in this District must adhere to the procedural requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

as well as the Local Rules for the Middle District of Florida. McNeil v. U.S., 508 U.S. 106, 113

(1993).

singular conclusory statement is the extent of her claim. Furthermore, Plaintiff has

failed to attribute specific actions to each Defendant and instead has grouped them

together in asserting her claim. This is not proper. Plaintiff must separate out her

causes of action for each Defendant and allege specific facts to support same. See

Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015) (finding

the “rare sin of asserting multiple claims against multiple defendants without

specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions” to be

an improper shot gun pleading). Finally, though Plaintiff has alleged jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Plaintiff’s domicile is ambiguous. Plaintiff provides a

Florida address and phone number but claims to be a Maryland resident. (Doc. 3, at

3). If Plaintiff is domiciled in Florida, the Court may not have original jurisdiction

over this claim without proving that the two parties are diverse.

Moreover, even if Plaintiff’s Complaint was sufficient to establish a viable

federal claim, she has still failed to establish indigent status entitling her to a waiving

of the filing fee. In connection with her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed an

Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long

Form) which the Court construes as a request to proceed in forma pauperis. However,

Plaintiff declined to answer any question concerning her finances. (See Doc. 4).

Specifically, based on Plaintiff’s submission, this Court has no knowledge as to

Plaintiff’s employment history, sources of income, assets, dependents, or liabilities.

Without such knowledge, the Court cannot make a determination as to Plaintiff’s

indigent status.

Accordingly, it is hereby

RECOMMENDED:

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4) be DENIED.

2. Plaintiff Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Doc. 3) be DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

3. The Clerk be directed to close the case.

IT IS SO REPORTED in Tampa, Florida, on this 21st day of August 2024.

J p=)

Lh by

PW"

ANTHONY E. PORCELLI

United Sfates Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO PARTIES

A party has fourteen days from the date they are served a copy of this report to

file written objections to this report’s proposed findings and recommendations or to

seek an extension of the fourteen-day deadline to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C). A party’s failure to file written objections waives that party’s right to

challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual finding or legal conclusion the district

judge adopts from the Report and Recommendation. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). Should the parties wish to expedite the resolution of this matter, they

may promptly file a joint notice of no objection.

cc: Hon. Thomas P. Barber

Counsel of Record