Stuprich et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing et al

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing case without prejudice for the reasons explained herein. All pending motions are denied as moot. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 3/10/2015. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
OTTIE STUPRICH and
MARY STUPRICH,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 8:14-cv-3202-T-30AEP

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING and
FREMONT INVESTMENTS & LOAN,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court sua sponte.

Based upon the Court’s

independent examination of the complaint filed in this action, the Court concludes that this
case must be dismissed. Specifically, Plaintiffs do not allege an actionable claim under
federal law. Moreover, it appears that the Court does not otherwise have subject matter
jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs, who are proceeding in this case pro se, filed the instant complaint based,
purportedly, on federal law. The complaint, which consists mainly of a 3-page form that
lacks factual details, attempts to allege a claim related to Plaintiffs’ mortgage and/or
property. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment “stating that they are the sole owner of
property” located in Florida (Dkt. 1). Plaintiffs vaguely reference that their claim is under
42 U.S.C. §1983 against Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing and Fremont Investments &
Loan. The complaint, however, does not contain any facts establishing state action on
Defendants’ parts, or constitutional violations. Thus, the complaint falls woefully short

of establishing an actionable claim under section 1983 even under the liberal standard
afforded to pro se litigants and must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court
concludes that permitting amendment of the claim would be futile because, even under the
most liberal reading, the complaint does not allege any facts that would apply to a section
1983 claim.
The Court also concludes that the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs do not allege an actionable federal claim sufficient to
establish federal question jurisdiction. Indeed, to the extent that the Court can glean a
legally cognizable claim from the narrative attached to the 3-page form (Dkt. 1 at 4-5), the
claim appears most akin to a quiet title claim under Florida law. Notably, the complaint
does not contain any allegations that would support diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for the reasons explained

2.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

3.

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

herein.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 10th day of March, 2015.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Even\2014\14-cv-3202 dismissal.docx

2