Miller v. Fed Loan Services et al

Filing 3

ORDER: The case is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and thereafter CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/7/2015. (AKH)

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

Case No. 8:15-cv-0015-T-33EAJ

FED LOAN SERVICES, and
US DEPT OF EDUCATION,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On January
7, 2015, pro se Plaintiff Sharon Miller filed a document
styled as a letter and construed by this Court as a Complaint.
(See Doc. # 1). Upon review of the Complaint, the Court
determines that Miller has failed to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
Discussion
In accordance with Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) calls
“for sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 570). A plausible claim for relief must include “factual
content

[that]

allows

the

court

to

draw

the

reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id.
Construing Miller’s Complaint liberally due to her pro
se status, the Court reaches the inescapable conclusion that
although this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
action due to the United States Department of Education as a
Defendant, Miller has failed to articulate any causes of
action. It is clear that Miller is seeking redress for money
paid for tuition and treatment she received from the education
facility. However, the Complaint contains a minimal amount of
information, making it difficult for this Court to decipher
what specific causes of action are being brought and why they
are

being

brought

against

these

particular

Defendants,

especially the United States Department of Education. The
Complaint does not specifically reference a constitutional
amendment or federal statute, and even if it did, a mere
reference to federal law is not enough. The Court has no
obligation to hypothesize a federal claim, even considering
Miller’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

2

pleading in order to sustain an action.”)(internal quotation
omitted).
Having determined that Miller has failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, the Court dismisses this
case.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The case is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

(2)

The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions
and thereafter CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 7th

day of January, 2015.

Copies: All parties of record

3