Enright v. Enright
Filing
5
ORDER: This case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and thereafter CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/2/2014. (KNC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JAMES MATTHEW ENRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 8:14-cv-1048-T-33MAP
JAMES ENRIGHT,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On May 1,
2014, James Enright filed a Notice of Removal (Doc. # 1), a
Claim in Recoupment (Doc. # 3), and an Emergency Motion (Doc.
# 4). Upon review of these documents, the Court determines
that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter
and thus dismisses this case.
Discussion
“A federal court not only has the power but also the
obligation at any time to inquire into jurisdiction whenever
the possibility that jurisdiction does not exist arises.”
Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 760 F.2d 1249, 1251
(11th Cir. 1985); Hallandale Prof'l Fire Fighters Local 2238
v. City of Hallandale, 922 F.2d 756, 759 (11th Cir. 1991)
(stating “every federal court operates under an independent
obligation to ensure it is presented with the kind of concrete
controversy upon which its constitutional grant of authority
is based”).
Moreover,
federal
courts
are
courts
of
limited
jurisdiction. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th
Cir. 1994). “[B]ecause a federal court is powerless to act
beyond its statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, a
court must zealously [e]nsure that jurisdiction exists over
a case, and should itself raise the question of subject matter
jurisdiction at any point in the litigation where a doubt
about jurisdiction arises.” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292,
1299 (11th Cir. 2001). Federal question jurisdiction requires
that a party assert a substantial federal claim. Hagans v.
Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536 (1976); see also Baker v. Carr, 369
U.S. 186, 199 (1962) (holding that if jurisdiction is based
on a federal question, the plaintiff must show that he has
alleged a claim under federal law that is not frivolous).
Construing Mr. Enright’s documents liberally due to his
pro se status, the Court reaches the inescapable conclusion
that this case is due to be dismissed. Although Mr. Enright
references federal statutes, such as 28 U.S.C. § 1916, a mere
reference to federal law is not enough to establish federal
question jurisdiction. A case “arises under” federal law
2
where federal law creates the cause of action or where a
substantial disputed issue of federal law is a necessary
element of a state law claim. See Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal.
v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1,
9-10 (1991). In this case, none of the documents filed by Mr.
Enright identify any federal issue upon which the Court could
predicate the exercise of its federal question jurisdiction.
Having determined that the Court lacks jurisdiction, the
Court dismisses this case.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)
This
case
is
dismissed
for
lack
of
subject
matter
jurisdiction.
(2)
The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions
and thereafter CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 2nd
day of May, 2014.
Copies: All parties of record
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?