Caldwell v. Klinker et al

Filing 5

ORDER: The Complaint 1 is dismissed without prejudice. Keith Robert Caldwell may file an amended complaint on or before November 17, 2014. If no amended complaint is filed on or before November 17, 2014, this case will be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/31/2014. (AKH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
KEITH ROBERT CALDWELL, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:14-cv-2708-T-33EAJ

SUZANNE M. KLINKER, ET AL.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On October
30, 2014, Keith Robert Caldwell, Sr. initiated this action
against Suzanne Klinker, Susan Cutchall, Sharon Hayes, and
John Timberlake, setting forth various claims for disregard
of health and welfare of veterans, violations of Florida’s
Baker Act law, and medical malpractice. (See Doc. # 1). In
the

Complaint,

jurisdiction

Caldwell

over

this

contends
action

as

that

this

Court

Defendants

has

allegedly

violated his civil and constitutional rights. (Id.).
Upon review of the Complaint, the Court determines that
it

lacks

subject

matter

jurisdiction

over

this

matter.

However, in light of Caldwell’s pro se status, the Court
grants Caldwell leave to file an amended complaint, on or
before

November

17,

2014,

so

that

Caldwell

may

have

an

additional opportunity to properly allege jurisdiction, if
possible.
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).

Construing

Caldwell’s

Complaint

liberally due to his pro se status, the Court reaches the

2

inescapable conclusion that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this action.
As stated above, Caldwell contends that this Court has
jurisdiction

over

this

action

as

Defendants

allegedly

violated his civil and constitutional rights. (Id.). However,
Caldwell does not specifically reference a constitutional
amendment or federal statute, and a mere reference to federal
law is not enough to establish federal question jurisdiction.
A case “arises under” federal law 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).
The Court has no obligation to hypothesize a federal
claim, even considering Caldwell’s pro se status. See Gibbs
v. U.S., 865 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1151 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (“The
leniency afforded to pro se pleadings does not give a court
license to serve as de facto counsel for a party or to rewrite
an

otherwise

deficient

pleading

in

order

to

sustain

an

action.”)(internal quotation omitted).
Although Caldwell alleges this Court has jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in light of Caldwell’s pro se
status, this Court will also analyze whether Caldwell has

3

established diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332. In order to sufficiently allege diversity jurisdiction,
Caldwell must demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship
and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332. In order to demonstrate complete diversity,
Caldwell must establish that his citizenship is diverse from
the citizenship of every Defendant. As explained in Molinos
Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330, 1342 n.12
(11th Cir. 2011), "citizenship, not residence, is the key
fact that must be alleged . . . to establish diversity for a
natural person." In addition, Caldwell must establish that
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Upon review of the Complaint, Caldwell has failed to
definitively establish diversity jurisdiction as Caldwell has
not properly alleged the citizenship of all the parties.
Specifically,
Petersburg,

Caldwell
Florida.

provides
He

also

that

he

alleges

resides

that

in

St.

Klinker

and

Cutchall lives in Bay Pines, Florida, Hayes lives in St.
Petersburg,

Florida,

and

Timberlake

lives

in

Clearwater,

Florida. (Doc. # 1). As stated above, it is citizenship and
not residence that is essential to the diversity analysis.
Accordingly, this Court determines that it lacks subject
matter

jurisdiction

over

this

4

action.

The

Court

thus

dismisses the Complaint without prejudice so that Caldwell
may

have

an

additional

opportunity

to

properly

allege

jurisdiction, if possible. The Court grants Caldwell leave to
file an amended complaint on or before November 17, 2014.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The Complaint (Doc. # 1) is dismissed without prejudice.

(2)

Keith Robert Caldwell may file an amended complaint on
or before November 17, 2014.

(3)

If no amended complaint is filed on or before November
17, 2014, this case will be dismissed without further
notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

31st day of October, 2014.

Copies: All parties of record

5