Randolph v. Daniels

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 10/20/2014. (AEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
WILLIAM J. RANDOLPH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:14-cv-2465-T-36TBM

PATRICIA DANIELS,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 5) to this Court’s Order
to Show Cause (Doc. 3). For the reasons discussed below this matter will be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
On September 29, 2014 pro se litigant William J. Randolph filed a “Notice of Intent”,
which this Court interprets as a complaint intended to initiate a lawsuit against Defendant Patricia
Daniels. See Doc. 1. Randolph seeks damages in the amount of $15,000 related to the sale of his
deceased parents’ property in Georgia and $15,000 for pain and suffering. However, Randolph
did not provide any basis for this Court’s jurisdiction over the matter.
Federal courts are obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever
it may be lacking. Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004); Univ. of South Ala. v.
American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). “The jurisdiction of a court over the
subject matter of a claim involves the court’s competency to consider a given type of case, and
cannot be waived or otherwise conferred upon the court by the parties.” Jackson v. Seaboard
Coast Line R.R. Co., 678 F.2d 992, 1000 (11th Cir. 1982). Federal jurisdiction exists when the
parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy is above $75,000. See 28

U.S.C. § 1332. Here the amount in controversy is only $30,000 and the citizenship of the parties
is unknown. Alternatively, jurisdiction could be based on a federal question – but no federal law
appears to be at issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, William Randolph was ordered to show
cause in writing, on or before October 24, 2014, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
In his response to the show cause order Randolph claims that this court has jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 “where the amount is only or about $30,000 plus interest and $15,000 for
punitive damages.” Doc. 5 at p. 1. This is simply incorrect. The amount in controversy must exceed
$75,000 for jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the parties must be citizens of
different states. Plaintiff has also failed to establish the citizenship of either party. Accordingly, it
is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
1.

This case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

2.

The Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on October 20, 2014.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

2