Walter Craig Spraggins v. State of Florida , 693 F. App'x 845 ( 2017 )

Case: 17-10117 Date Filed: 07/11/2017 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-10117
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-00478-MCR-CJK
WALTER CRAIG SPRAGGINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF FLORIDA,
WALTON COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CITY OF FREEPORT, FLORIDA,
HAMMOCK BAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT,
JAY ODOM,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(July 11, 2017)
Case: 17-10117 Date Filed: 07/11/2017 Page: 2 of 3
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Walter Spraggins appeals pro se the sua sponte dismissal without prejudice
of his fourth amended complaint against the State of Florida, Walton County, the
City of Freeport, Hammock Bay Community Development District, and Jay Odom.
The district court dismissed Spraggins’s complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
of 1995, even though he was not a prisoner proceeding as an indigent. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), (h). Although the Act did not apply to Spraggins, we
affirm the dismissal of his complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
One standard of review governs this appeal. We review de novo the
dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim under the Litigation Reform
Act. Evans v. Ga. Reg’l Hosp., 850 F.3d 1248, 1253 (11th Cir. 2017). “The
existence of jurisdiction [also] is a question of law we review de novo.” Travaglio
v. Am. Exp. Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013). A federal “court should
inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage
in the proceedings” and “is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua
sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d
405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999).
2
Case: 17-10117 Date Filed: 07/11/2017 Page: 3 of 3
The Litigation Reform Act did not apply to Spraggins. He was not an inmate
nor was he a prisoner, as that term is defined in the Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h);
Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he PLRA’s
straightforward definition of ‘prisoner’ . . . appl[ies] only to persons incarcerated as
punishment for a criminal conviction.”). Spraggins also did not apply to proceed in
forma pauperis; he paid the required fee when he filed his complaint.
The district court correctly dismissed Spraggins’s fourth amended complaint
for lack of jurisdiction. “When a plaintiff files suit in federal court, []he must
allege facts that, if true, show federal subject matter jurisdiction over [his] case
exists.” Travaglio, 735 F.3d at 1268. The district court ruled that Spraggins’s
complaint failed either to allege complete diversity of citizenship among the
parties, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), or to state a claim arising under federal law, id.
§ 1331, and Spraggins does not challenge that ruling. Spraggins argues that he
should have been given a fifth opportunity to amend his complaint, but the district
court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, so Spraggins is free to file
another complaint against the defendants.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Spraggins’s complaint.
3