New Techniks et al v. Miami Heat et al

Filing 4

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. 18-cv-20081-GAYLES
NEW TECHNIKS, PRODIGIUM, LLC,
MAXIMUS CASHWELL, LEO JEAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MIAMI HEAT, et al.,
Defendants,
______________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record. Plaintiff
Maximus Cashwell, appearing pro se, filed this action on January 9, 2018 [ECF No. 1]. 1
Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis the same day [ECF No. 3].
Because Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis, the screening provisions of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), are applicable. 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).
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
1 Leo Jean, New Techniks and Prodigium, LLC, are also named Plaintiffs. It appears that New Teckniks and Prodigium, LLC, are corporate entities and, therefore, may not proceed in litigation without counsel. See Palazzo v. Gulf
Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985) (“The rule is well established that a corporation is an artificial entity that can act only through agents, cannot appear pro se, and must be represented by counsel.”). Further, Leo Jean
has not signed any of the pleadings. As a result, the Court treats Maximus Cashwell as the “Plaintiff.”

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 allege that he has an ownership interest in the Miami Heat basketball team and/or the American Airlines Arena.

There is noth-

ing 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.

Based thereon, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice
pursuant to Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

This action is CLOSED for administrative purposes and

all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 12th day of January, 2018.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2