Figueroa v. Commissioner United States Boxing

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (hs01) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 17-cv-21110-GAYLES
FIGUEROA NEGRON EDUARDO,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER UNITED STATES AND
THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION
BOXING 1940,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record. Plaintiff
Figueroa Negron Eduardo, appearing pro se, filed this action on March 24, 2017 [ECF No. 1].
Plaintiff failed to pay a filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has, however,
asked the Court to appoint an attorney to represent him, indicating that he does not have the
funds to hire his own attorney [ECF No. 4].
Because the Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee, the Court will apply the screening
provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 1

Pursuant to

that statute, the court is 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).

1
The Court notes that even if the PLRA does not apply because Plaintiff has not formally filed a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, the Court still has the authority to sua sponte dismiss a claim where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. See Walker v. Sun Trust Bank of Thomasville, GA, 363 Fed.App’x 11,16 (11th Cir. 2010).

The standards governing dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
are the same as those governing dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Alba
v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). 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. To survive a motion to dismiss, a claim “must contain
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, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007)). “[T]he pleadings are construed broadly,” Levine v. World Fin. Network Nat’l Bank,
437 F.3d 1118, 1120 (11th Cir. 2006), and the allegations in the complaint are viewed in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir.
1998). In reviewing the Complaint, the Court must apply the “liberal construction to which pro se
pleadings are entitled.” Holsomback v. White, 133 F.3d 1382, 1386 (11th Cir. 1998). However,
liberal construction cannot serve as a substitute to establishing a valid cause of action. See GJR
Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). At bottom, the question
is not whether the claimant “will ultimately prevail . . . but whether his complaint [is] sufficient
to cross the federal court’s threshold.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 530 (2011).
Although not entirely clear, Plaintiff appears to be asking the Court to force Defendant to provide him with his boxing records. There is nothing to suggest that this Court has
original or diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. In addition, the Court cannot determine how and to what extent Plaintiff has been injured or the legal basis upon which he seeks
relief.

As a result, this action must be dismissed.

2

Based thereon, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

This action is CLOSED for administrative purposes and all pending motions are DE-

NIED as MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of March, 2017.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3