State of Florida v. Wideman

Filing 3

ORDER: The 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 12/15/2014. (KNC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:14-cv-3086-T-33TGW

ANGELA M. WIDEMAN,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
This

matter

comes

before

the

Court

sua

sponte.

On

December 11, 2014, Angela M. Wideman (Wideman), appearing pro
se, removed this action from the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in
and for Sarasota County, Florida. (See Doc. # 1). Upon review
of the record, the Court determines that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over this action.
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). Upon review of the record, the Court
reaches the inescapable conclusion that this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Wideman failed
to provide the Court with the operative complaint in this
action. Therefore, the Court’s jurisdictional inquiry is
limited to the Notice of Removal. (See Doc. # 1). To that
end, the Notice of Removal contains a minimal amount of
information, making it difficult for this Court to decipher
the claims being asserted in this action. Furthermore, the
Notice of Removal is devoid of a jurisdictional statement
setting forth how, if at all, this Court has jurisdiction

2

over this matter. Given Wideman’s pro se status, however, the
Court will address whether it has subject matter jurisdiction
over this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332.
The Notice of Removal does not specifically reference a
constitutional amendment or federal statute, and even if it
did,

a

mere

establish

reference

federal

to

federal

question

law

is

jurisdiction.

not
A

enough

case

to

“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 Wideman’s pro
se status. See Gibbs v. United States, 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). Therefore, this Court finds that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Furthermore,

the

Court

determines

that

Wideman

has

failed to establish diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332. In order to sufficiently allege diversity

3

jurisdiction, Wideman must demonstrate complete diversity of
citizenship
$75,000.

See

and
28

that

the

U.S.C.

§

amount
1332.

in
To

controversy
demonstrate

exceeds
complete

diversity, Wideman must establish that her citizenship is
diverse from the citizenship of the State of Florida. 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,

Wideman must establish that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000.
Upon review of the Notice or Removal, Wideman has failed
to definitively establish diversity jurisdiction as Wideman
has not properly alleged the citizenship of all the individual
parties in this action. Furthermore, the Court finds that
Wideman has not established that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. Thus, diversity jurisdiction does not exist.
Having determined that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or 1332, the Court
dismisses this case.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

4

(1)

The

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

15th day of December, 2014.

Copies: All parties of record

5