Evans v. 3534 Smithfield, LLC

Filing 14

ORDER dismissing case, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; directing the Clerk of the Court to refund the filing fee to Plaintiff Kamel Evans. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 7/28/2016. (MHM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

KAMEL EVANS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:16-cv-830-J-34JBT
vs.
3534 SMITHFIELD, LLC d/b/a
Avesta San Jose,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte.

Plaintiff Kamel Evans, who is

proceeding pro se, initiated the instant action on June 27, 2016, by filing a complaint titled
“Claim” (Doc. 1; Complaint). However, Evans failed to allege any basis for this Court’s
jurisdiction over his lawsuit, and the Court independently could not discern any source of
subject matter jurisdiction. As such, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 3) on July 1, 2016,
directing Evans “to provide the Court with sufficient information so that it can determine
whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.” See Order at 3. The Court
cautioned Evans that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this action for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction without further notice. See id. On July 5, 2016, Evans filed a
document titled “Notice: Jurisdiction” (Doc. 7; Notice). However, in the Notice, Evans
neither provides the information necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction, as explained
in the Court’s prior Order, nor does he set forth any other basis for federal subject matter
jurisdiction. See generally Notice. Although Evans filed additional documents on July 14,
2016, these filings do not address the Court’s jurisdictional concerns either. See Notice:

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 10); Notice: Parties (Doc. 11); Notice: Error (Doc. 12).

The

deadline set for responding to the Court’s jurisdictional inquiry has now passed. See Order
(Doc. 3) at 3 (directing Evans to provide jurisdictional information by July 21, 2016).
As stated in the July 1, 2016 Order, 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). Because Evans fails to establish any basis
for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over his claim, the Court will dismiss this case
without prejudice. The Court notes that filing fees are nonrefundable such that Evans
would typically forfeit the fee in this circumstance. Nonetheless, upon review of the
Complaint, the Court finds it appropriate to assist Evans by refunding the filing fee in this
one instance. However, Evans is cautioned that if he elects to file any future cases,
regardless of the outcome, the Court will not refund the filing fee.
ORDERED:
1. This case is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

2 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines
as moot and close the file.
3. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to refund the filing fee to Plaintiff Kamel
Evans.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 28th day of July, 2016.

lc11
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties

3