Opinion
CASE NO. 16-20852-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
03-21-2016
MICHAEL ROBERT TEIGEN, Plaintiff, v. JULIO FRENK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff Michael Robert Teigen, appearing pro se, filed this action on March 9, 2016. [ECF No. 1]. The Court has reviewed the Complaint and the record and is fully advised.
"Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed." Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). "When it appears that a pro se plaintiff's complaint, if more carefully drafted, might state a claim, the district court should give the pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint instead of dismissing it." Humphrey v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 597 F. App'x 571, 573 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). "However, this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action." Odion v. Google Inc., 628 Fed. App'x 635, 637 (11th Cir., 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "[E]ven pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Maza v. Ware, 81 F. Supp. 3d 16, 18 (D.D.C. 2015).
Plaintiff alleges "financial fraud" at the University of Miami and asserts this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to HR 4137, the Higher Education Opportunity Act (the "HEA"). "[T]he HEA does not expressly confer a private right of action, as the HEA only provides for a suit brought against the Secretary of Education." McCulloch v. PNC Bank, Inc., 298 F.3d 1217, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff alleges no other basis for this Court's jurisdiction. Federal courts must dismiss an action sua sponte if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. Norton, 324 F.3d 1229, 1240 (11th Cir. 2003). Consequently, the Court must dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 4], and the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) are applicable. As the Court is dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it does not address whether dismissal is appropriate under § 1915. --------
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is CLOSED, and all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 21st day of March, 2016.
/s/_________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE