McGee v. YWCA Miami Dade County

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/28/2011. Associated Cases: 1:11-cv-22410-MGC, 1:11-cv-22546-MGC (tm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 11-22410-Civ-COOKE/TURNOFF
EDITH J. McGEE,
Plaintiff
vs.
YWCA MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER is before me on an independent review of the record. The Plaintiff,
Edith J. McGee, filed a complaint on July 5, 2011, along with a Motion for Leave to Appeal in
forma pauperis. On July 21, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. I have reviewed all
of the Plaintiff’s filings, the complaint and amended complaint,1 and the relevant legal
authorities. For the reasons explained in this Order, the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is
dismissed without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff, Edith J. McGee, alleges that the “YWCA, Miami-Dade County” violated
her “contempt” and “rights” by firing her in retaliation for a complaint she made regarding other
teachers at the YWCA. She also appears to bring a personal injury action.

1

It appears that the Plaintiff amended her complaint to include a prayer for damages, but
intended to incorporate the allegations raised in the complaint into the amended complaint. I
have therefore construed the complaint and amended complaint together in evaluating the
Plaintiff’s case. Cf. Asad v. Bush, 170 F. App’x 668, 671 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Pro se pleadings are
held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be
liberally construed.”).

The factual allegations contained in the Plaintiff’s Complaint and Amended Complaint
are lengthy and at times indiscernible. In a nutshell, Ms. McGee alleges that she worked as a
foster grandparent in a program run by the YWCA. She alleges that she witnessed two teachers
harming children at the YWCA. She reported the misconduct, and as a result, the YWCA fired
her. She also alleges that a teacher hit her in the head with “a hard ball.” She claims, “they hurt
my eye, made me sick, I have high blood [] me[di]cation.” Additionally, she claims another
teacher pulled her ear “so hard it all my [sic] came out of my head.”
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
“ Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys
and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263
(11th Cir. 1998). However, a court must dismiss an in forma pauperis case “at any time if the
court determines that . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Additionally, a district court must sua sponte inquire into subject
matter jurisdiction, and may dismiss a case, whenever it may be lacking. Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3); Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). “[O]nce a
federal court determines that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to
continue.” Id.
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff does not state the source of this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. A court
“shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A court shall also assert jurisdiction over civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and is between citizens of different
states or foreign countries. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

2

This Court does not appear to have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff
amended her claim to include a demand for damages in the amount of $20,000. Thus, Plaintiff
does not meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. Although Plaintiff does not state under
which laws she intends to pursue her claims, her claims appear to raise only state causes of
action. Plaintiff raises two claims. The first claim is for employer retaliation because Plaintiff
reported a violation of law. Such conduct may, in certain circumstances, constitute a violation of
the Florida Whistleblower’s Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.102. The second claim is for personal injury
suffered at the workplace. Such an action would arise under Florida tort law. On its face, it does
not appear that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action.
IV. CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to sufficiently allege subject matter jurisdiction, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that
1. The Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file
a Second Amended Complaint on or before August 12, 2011, properly alleging a basis for
this Court’s jurisdiction.
2. All other motions are DENIED as moot.
3. The Clerk is directed to administratively CLOSE this matter.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 28TH day of July 2011.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of record
Edith J. McGee, pro se

3