Scott v. Hammond

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

SHALITA T. SCOTT

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:25-cv-01435-WFJ-NHA

FORD HAMMOND, et. al.

Defendants.

___________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I respectfully recommend that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without pre-

paying the filing fee (Doc. 3) be denied, and that her Complaint (Doc. 1) be

dismissed with prejudice, because this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear

her case.

I. Background

Plaintiff, who proceeds without an attorney, sues five defendants whom

she claims either stole, or tricked Plaintiff into transferring, property from

Plaintiff’s late father’s estate. Doc. 1.

Plaintiff asserts that she is a citizen of Maryland. Id. pp. 1, 4. She asserts

that three of the Defendants are also citizens of Maryland. Id., p. 4. She does

not identify a specific amount in controversy. Id., p. 5.

II. Legal Standard

Federal courts must hold pro se filings (meaning those papers filed by a

party who represents himself) to “less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). More

specifically, a court must “provide[] pro se parties wide latitude when

construing their pleadings and papers” and “use common sense to determine

what relief the party desires.” S.E.C. v. Elliot, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir.

1992). Nonetheless, courts need not exempt pro se litigants from complying

with the requirements imposed by the law and rules of procedure. See Brown

v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1990); Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d

835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989).

The federal statute that governs the right to bring a lawsuit without pre-

paying a filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, “is designed to ensure that indigent

litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts.” Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Accordingly, the statute permits a litigant to

commence an action in federal court “by filing in good faith an affidavit

stating . . . that he is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit.” Id. “Congress

recognized, however, that a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are

assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to

refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Id. To that end,

section 1915 provides that a court shall dismiss a case if the court determines

that 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). An action is frivolous when a

complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at

325.

Independent of the Court’s duty under section 1915(e) to evaluate the

claim of a party proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court also has an obligation

to ensure that it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case. See FED. R. CIV. P.

12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter

jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); see also Arbaugh v. Y & H

Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (“[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lacks

subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its

entirety.”).

“Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, or in other

words, they have the power to decide only certain types of cases.” Morrison v.

Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1260–61 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing University

of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409–10 (11th Cir.

1999)). First, federal courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions

where (1) the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and

costs, and (2) the parties are citizens of different states; this is called diversity

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Second, federal courts have jurisdiction over “all

civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

States;” this is called federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A

complaint presents a federal question where it “establishes either that federal

law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily

depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax

Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 27–28

(1983).

III. Analysis

Plaintiff asserts no claim that presents a question of federal law.1 Rather,

civil conversion and fraud are state law claims. Plaintiff instead asserts that

this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this case. See Compl. (Doc. 1), p. 1

(Styled “Complaint for the Conversion of Property 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Diversity

Citizenship”). However, Plaintiff and several Defendants are citizens of the

same state. This defeats the Court’s diversity jurisdiction.

In addition, Plaintiff does not allege that the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000. Doc. 1, p. 5. The omission of an amount in controversy is a

second, independently sufficient bar to this Court’s diversity jurisdiction.

1 Plaintiff states in her civil cover sheet that she is bringing a claim

under 18 U.S.C. § 2315. But this statute provides criminal, and not civil,

penalties for theft of goods and money.

Although, generally, a court must give a plaintiff at least one opportunity

to amend her complaint, before dismissing it with prejudice, a court “need

not... where amendment would be futile.” Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161,

1163 (11th Cir. 2001). Although Plaintiffs failure to allege a_ sufficient

amount in controversy might be cured by amending her Complaint, the

citizenship of the parties could not. For that reason, amendment would be

futile.

IV. Conclusion

Because this Court lacks the power to hear this case, I respectfully

RECOMMEND:

(1) Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) be DENIED;

(2) Plaintiffs complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED with prejudice; and

(3) The Clerk be directed to close the case.

REPORTED on July 3, 2025.

NATALIE HIRT ADAMS —

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO PARTIES

A party has fourteen days from this date to file written objections to the

Report and Recommendation’s factual findings and legal conclusions. 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. To expedite

resolution, parties may file a joint notice waiving the 14-day objection period.