UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 23-cv-23751-GAYLES

VALESHIA ANGLIN,

Plaintiff, v.

TINA MARIE BROWN,

Defendants, __________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed this action on September 29, 2023. [ECF No. 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,

(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.”

§ 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,

(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,

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). “[T]he pleadings are construed broadly,” Levine v. World Fin. Network Nat’l Bank,

(11th Cir. 2006), and the allegations in the complaint are viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc.,

(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,

(2011). The Court is first obligated to consider whether a claim falls within its subject matter jurisdiction and dismiss the claim if it finds subject matter jurisdiction to be lacking. Gonzalez v.

Thaler,

, 648 (2012); see also Dutta-Roy v. Fain, No. 14-0280,

, at *2 (N.D. Ga. May 5, 2014); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “Subject-matter jurisdiction . . . refers to a tribunal’s power to hear a case.” Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region,

(2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “In a given case, a federal district court must have at least one of three types of subject matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to

; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to

(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp.,

(11th Cir. 1997). In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, without detail, that Defendant is preventing Plaintiff

from obtaining her deceased father’s social security benefits. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant is stalking her. Although Plaintiff indicates that this Court has both federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction, the Complaint does not indicate that the Court has either. On its face, the Complaint does not implicate the Court’s original jurisdiction. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that both she and Defendant are citizens of Florida, thus negating diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, this action shall be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and CLOSED for administrative purposes. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 4th day of October, 2023.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE