Opinion
Case No. 6:06-cv-1622-Orl-19JGG.
December 14, 2006
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on the following:
1. The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge on Plaintiff William M. Hick Jr.'s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. No. 8, filed Nov. 20, 2006); and
2. Plaintiff William M. Hick Jr.'s Motion of Rebuttal to Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 9, filed Dec. 11, 2006).
Background
Pro se plaintiff, William M. Hicks, filed a Complaint against the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on October 17, 2006. (Doc. Nos. 1-2, filed Oct. 17, 2006). On October 18, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to submit the required information to evaluate his financial status and because the Complaint "faile[d] to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction and appeare[d] frivolous." (Doc. No. 5, pp. 8-9, filed Oct. 18, 2006). The Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint before November 14, 2006 or else his case would be dismissed. ( Id. at p. 9) On November 7, 2006, Plaintiff submitted a second Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, but Plaintiff never submitted an Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 6, filed Nov. 7, 2006; see Doc. No. 8, filed Nov. 20, 2006). Consequently, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied and his Complaint be dismissed as frivolous because the allegations in the Complaint did not show a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 8, filed Nov. 20, 2006).Standard of Review
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the District Courts are required to conduct an initial screening of civil complaints filed in forma pauperis. The District Court is authorized to "dismiss the case if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal is (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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Analysis
The District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. U.S. Const., art. III, § 2. Subject matter jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown before the District Court considers the merits of any case. See Ruhrgas A.G. v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999).
The record in the case fails to affirmatively indicate a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendant USDA "mislead the court" in thinking that Plaintiff and his family failed to make certain loan payments. (Doc. No. 1, p. 2). Plaintiff also alleges Defendant USDA's actions violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution because it changed his loan from a "FM HA R Housing Loan" to a conventional loan without his consent. (Doc. No. 1, p. 3). By its own terms the Fourteenth Amendment applies to state actors, not federal actors such as the USDA. Ward v. Comm'r Internal Revenue, 608 F.2d 599, 601 (5th Cir. 1979) ("[T]he Fourteenth Amendment applies only to state, and not to federal, action.) Therefore, the Complaint does not state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment against the USDA.
The specific relief Plaintiff is requesting is unclear, but the facts of the Complaint indicate no other basis for federal jurisdiction. When a basis for subject matter jurisdiction cannot be discerned from the allegations of the Complaint, the Court is unable to exercise jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. See Ruhrgas A.G. v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff a chance to amend his Complaint to allege a basis for subject matter jurisdiction and warned Plaintiff that failure to comply would result in his Complaint being dismissed. (Doc. No. 5, pp. 8-9). Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's order. (Doc. No. 8, p. 2). Because the Complaint does not allege subject matter jurisdiction it must be dismissed.
Conclusion
The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. No. 9). The Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 8). Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 6) is denied. Plaintiff having had the opportunity to amend his complaint and having failed to do so, Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida.