COLE
v.
WH PUPPETRY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a pro se plaintiff's complaint was unintelligible and failed to adequately allege a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against the United States, attaching incoherent pleadings from a state court proceeding. The complaint was describe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pro Se Litigant cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on a *sua sponte* review of the record.
On July 9, 2024, Plaintiff Donald Melton Cole, appearing pro se, filed a Complaint against the United States using the "Complaint for a Civil Case" form for pro se litigants.¹ [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff's Complaint is incoherent and, in some places, illegible. Plaintiff states that the basis for this Court's jurisdiction is “[b]asically forcible felonies in stockholming listed in lower court Broward 24-001446.” Id. Plaintiff attaches to his Complaint pleadings from a proceeding in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida (the “State Court"). [ECF No. 1-2]. The attachments include multiple nonsensical motions filed in the State Court and rambling emails Plaintiff sent to state and federal officials.²
The Court is 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*, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012); 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*, 558 U.S. 67, 81 (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 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” *Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp.*, 128 F. 3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997).
Here, Plaintiff fails to adequately allege that this Court has jurisdiction under a statutory grant, federal question jurisdiction, or diversity jurisdiction. Indeed, as the Complaint is unintelligible, it is impossible for the Court to discern a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Complaint must be dismissed without prejudice.³ Based thereon, 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 26th day of July, 2024.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Aubie Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466 (11th Cir. 1997)
- Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (U.S. 2012)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, 558 U.S. 67 (U.S. 2009)