DeMoreta-Folch v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 3

ORDER dismissing case. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file. The Clerk of Court is further directed to remove the.pdf of the Complaint from the electronic filing system and maintain it in paper format. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 7/10/2015. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

JOAQUIN MARIANO DeMORETA-FOLCH,
Complainant,
vs.

Case No.:

3:15-cv-709-J-34JRK

MANNY J. RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
This case is before the Court on a complaint filed by Joaquin Mariano DeMoretaFolch in the name of “We the People Statewide Common Law Grand Jury, Florida.” (Doc.
1; Complaint). The Complaint names employees of Florida Power and Light Company
(FPL) and several government officials, accusing them of various crimes and acts of
wrongdoing apparently arising from FPL’s attempt to replace DeMoreta-Folch’s
residential electrical meter box with a smart-meter.

This Complaint is part of a

troublesome trend, whereby citizens purporting to act as “common law grand juries” file
frivolous or non-cognizable complaints in federal court. These frivolous and patently
misleading filings burden the judiciary and hinder its ability to administer justice in truly
meritorious cases.
Upon review, the instant Complaint fails to articulate a cognizable claim for relief.
District courts have “the inherent authority to dismiss a patently frivolous complaint.”
Cuyler v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 2012 WL 10488184, at *2 (11th Cir. 2012)
(unpublished) (citing Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362,

1 

364 (2d Cir. 2000)). The courts have that authority whether the complainant has paid the
filing fee, as here, or not. Fitzgerald, 221 F.3d at 364. Additionally, the Complaint fails to
articulate the basis of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.1 Because this Complaint is
patently frivolous and fails to state any claim on which relief can be granted, it is due to
be dismissed.
Ordinarily, the Court would give a pro se litigant, such as DeMoreta-Folch, leave
to amend the complaint before dismissing it – if “it appear[ed] a more carefully drafted
complaint might state a claim upon which relief can be granted[.]” Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d
1108, 1112 (11th Cir. 1991), overruled in part by Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am.
Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542 (11th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (overruling Pitt’s holding only where
the litigant is counseled, and the litigant neither moved to amend nor requested leave to
amend). Upon review of the Complaint, the Court is convinced that DeMoreta-Folch could
not state a cognizable claim for relief even if the Court gave him leave to amend, and
therefore granting such leave would be futile.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:

1

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and therefore have an obligation to inquire into their
subject matter jurisdiction. See Kirkland v. Midland Mortgage Co., 243 F.3d 1277, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2001).
This obligation exists regardless of whether the parties have challenged the existence of subject matter
jurisdiction. 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.”). “In a given case, a federal district court must have at least one of three types of subject matter
jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a 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).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp.,
128 F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997). In the event this threshold requirement is not met, the Court must
dismiss the action if it “determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). Although DeMoreta-Folch alleges that FPL violated various constitutional rights, he does not
allege that FPL is a state actor, or that FPL was acting under color of state law when it engaged in the
conduct of which he complains. Therefore, the Court has no basis to assume that it has federal question
jurisdiction merely because DeMoreta-Folch alleges constitutional violations by FPL, a private company.

2 

1. Complainant Joaquin Mariano DeMoreta-Folch’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is
DISMISSED.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file.
3. The Clerk of Court is further directed to remove the .pdf of the Complaint from
the electronic filing system and maintain it in paper format.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 10th day of July, 2015.

Lc 19
Copies:
Pro se party

3