Philistin v. Knowles Carter et al

Filing 8

AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 1/30/2015. (hs01)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.

14-24373-CIV-GAYLES

JEFFNEY PHILISTIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BEYONCE GISELE KNOWLES
CARTER and SHAWN CARTER,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
AMENDED ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record.

Plaintiff,

a pro se litigant, has not paid the required filing fee and therefore the screening provisions of 28
U.S.C. section 1915(e) are applicable.

Pursuant to that statute, courts are permitted to dismiss a

suit “any time [] the court determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or
malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”

Id. § 1915(e)(2).

Upon initial

screening, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] fails to comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and must be dismissed.
To state a claim for relief, a pleading must contain: “(1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8.
Thereunder, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

“[T]o state a plausible claim

for relief, the plaintiff[] must plead ‘factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co.,
578 F.3d 1252, 1268 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949).
Furthermore, federal courts are A>empowered to hear only those cases within the judicial
power of the United States as defined by Article III of the Constitution,= and which have been
entrusted to them by a jurisdictional grant authorized by Congress.@

Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am.

Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365,
Accordingly, Aonce a federal court determines that it is without subject

1367 (11th Cir. 1994)).

matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue.@

Id. at 410.

Even under the relaxed pleading standard afforded to pro se litigants, see Abele v.
Tolbert, 130 F. App’x 342, 343 (11th Cir. 2005), Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to meet the
foregoing standards.

The Complaint is purportedly filed under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to

redress “constitutional violations.” Yet, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants’ failed to
compensate him for music lyrics and choreography do not set forth constitutional claims and as a
result must be dismissed.

In addition, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, and Plaintiff has failed to pay the requisite filing fee.

Based thereon, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this case is DISMISSED without prejudice, and the
Clerk is instructed to mark the case as CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of January,
2015.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE