Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Fl - Klein Et Al v Reid Et Al - 2012-08-20 - Magistrate Recommondation

Fl - Klein Et Al v Reid Et Al - 2012-08-20 - Magistrate Recommondation

Ratings: (0)|Views: 234|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan

More info:

Published by: Jack Ryan on Aug 27, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less





CHARLES L. KLEIN, SALLY L.BAPTISTE, and THERESA L.KAJKOWSKI,Plaintiffs,-vs-Case No. 6:12-cv-1256-Orl-36DABSENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRYREID, and HOUSE SPEAKERCONGRESSMAN JOHN BOEHNER,Defendants.________________________________________
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filedherein:
MOTION:MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc.No. 2)FILED:August 15, 2012_____________________________________________________________THEREON
it is
that the motion be
and theaction be dismissed.Upon a party’s submission of an affidavit of indigency, any court of the United States mayauthorize the party to proceed
in forma pauperis
. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Section 1915 grants broaddiscretion to the district courts in the management o
in forma pauperis
Clark v. Ga. Pardonsand Paroles Bd.
, 915 F.2d 636, 639 (11th Cir. 1990);
Phillips v. Mashburn
, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11thCir. 1984). The Court may dismiss the case or refuse to permit it to continue without payment of feesif the Court determines that the action is “frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A cause
Case 6:12-cv-01256-CEH-DAB Document 3 Filed 08/20/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID 19
of action should not be considered frivolous unless it is “without arguable merit.”
Sun v. Forrester 
,939 F.2d 924, 925 (11th Cir. 1991),
cert. denied 
, 503 U.S. 921 (1992) (
quoting Harris v. Menendez
,817 F.2d 737, 739 (11th Cir. 1987)). To determine if a plaintiff should be permitted to proceed
in forma pauperis
, a district court must determine “whether there is ‘a factual and legal basis . . . for theasserted wrong, however inartfully pleaded.’”
quoting Watson v. Ault 
, 525 F.2d 886, 892 (5th Cir.1976)). Critical to this analysis is a showing that the claim is within the limited jurisdiction of thisfederal court.
See, generally, Cogdell v. Wyeth
, 366 F.3d 1245, 1247-48 (11th Cir. 2004).Parties seeking to invoke the limited jurisdiction of the federal court over a cause of actionmust show that the underlying claim is based upon either diversity jurisdiction (controversiesexceeding $75,000 between citizens of different states) or the existence of a federal question (
“acivil action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”), in which a privateright of action has been created or is implied by Congressional intent.
28 U.S.C. § 1331 and§ 1332;
 Alexander v. Sandoval,
532 U.S. 275, 293 n.8 (2001).Applied here, the Court finds the motion must be denied. Although the instant Complaint isbrought by three
 pro se
Plaintiffs, only one Plaintiff has submitted a financial affidavit to support themotion. Moreover, the claim set forth in the Complaint is not within the jurisdiction of this Court.
The Complaint 
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, the United States Senate Majority Leader and the Speakerof the House of Representatives, “have violated their sworn oath of office and as agents of the people,[and] have breached their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs and all Americans by the improper andunethical management of the people’s budget and monies.” (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiffs assert thatDefendants “have appropriated funds from the U.S. Treasury without proper Congressional Approvaland have failed to publish a ‘Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all publicMoney’ as mandated by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution.” Further,
Case 6:12-cv-01256-CEH-DAB Document 3 Filed 08/20/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID 20
the failure of the Congress to “pass the people’s budgets has resulted in inappropriate and unethicalspending by the Legislative and Executive branches of our government.” This, in turn, breachesDefendants’ “fiduciary duty” to the People. Plaintiffs seek restitution for all pay, benefits, and profitsmade during the tenure of defendants’ failed representation “Of the People,” and for the“misappropriation of public monies” to be refunded to the people of America or applied to the publicdebt. Plaintiffs also ask for a decree mandating that Congress report to the public that all publicmonies that were misappropriated and spent erroneously will be restored to the public; and an orderthat these remedies be retroactive “to any and all elected and non-elected Public Servants of theUnited States House of Representatives and the United States Senate who have been found guilty of Breach of Fiduciary Duty.”Plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action cognizable in this Court.
Before the Court can consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, each plaintiff must demonstratethat he or she has standing to seek the relief sought.
See Florida Wildlife Fed'n, Inc. v. South FloridaWater Mgmnt. Dist 
., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011). To establish standing, each plaintiff mustshow that: (1) he suffered an injury in fact which is concrete and particularized and actual orimminent; (2) there is a causal connection between the injury and the defendant’s alleged conduct;and (3) “it must be ‘likely’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed bya favorable decision.’”
 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (internal citations omitted). A plaintiff must “allege such a personal stake in theoutcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentationof issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. . .”
 Baker v. Carr 
, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962).
Case 6:12-cv-01256-CEH-DAB Document 3 Filed 08/20/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID 21

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->