SCHNEIDER v. SCHNEIDER

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
ASHLEY SCHNEIDER,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 1:25cv355/AW/ZCB
WALTER SCHNEIDER,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this
action by filing a complaint. (Doc. 1). On November 26, 2025, the Court
ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen days, why this case
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 	(Doc. 5).
Plaintiff has not responded to the show cause order. 	Dismissal is
warranted for the reasons explained below.
“Federal courts . . . are courts of limited jurisdiction.” 	Wu v. Liu,
131 F.4th 1295, 1298 (11th Cir. 2025) (cleaned up). 	If a federal court
“determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the
court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Federal subject
matter jurisdiction is based upon either federal question, diversity of
citizenship, or jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant. See 28 U.S.C.
Case 1:25-cv-00355-AW-ZCB Document 8 Filed 12/19/25 Page 1 of 5

2
§§ 1331, 1332; Wilson v. Hearos, LLC, 128 F.4th 1254, 1260 (11th Cir.
2025).
Federal question jurisdiction exists when an action arises under
federal law. 	28 U.S.C. § 1331. 	Actions arise under federal law “when a
federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly
pleaded complaint.” 	Schleider v. GVDB Operations, LLC, 121 F.4th 149,
155-56 (11th Cir. 2024). This “well-pleaded complaint rule means that a
federal question is ‘presented’ when the complaint—on its face—invokes
federal law as the basis for relief.” Id. at 156. Claims based on state law
generally do not confer federal question jurisdiction. See Dunlap v. G&L
Holding Grp., Inc., 381 F.3d 1285, 1290 (11th Cir. 2004).
A 	second 	way 	to 	invoke 	federal 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	is
through diversity jurisdiction. 	Diversity jurisdiction exists when the
parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. 	28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 	“[T]he plaintiff’s amount-in-
controversy allegation is accepted if made in good faith.” 	Dart Cherokee
Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87 (2014). 	“Diversity
jurisdiction requires complete diversity; every plaintiff must be diverse
from every defendant.” Hensley v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 113 F.4th 1327,
1332 (11th Cir. 2024).
Case 1:25-cv-00355-AW-ZCB Document 8 Filed 12/19/25 Page 2 of 5

3
The burden to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction rests on
the party asserting it. Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1207
(11th Cir. 2007). 	Before dismissing a case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, the court should provide the plaintiff with notice and an
opportunity to respond. 	Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d
1239, 1248 (11th Cir. 2015).
Having reviewed the complaint, it provides no basis for federal
subject matter jurisdiction. 	Plaintiff states that the Court has federal
question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 	(Doc. 1 at 4). 	But where
the complaint form asks Plaintiff to list federal laws at issue in this case,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant bribed deputies of the Alachua County
Sheriff’s Department with firearms from an illegal gun shop. 	(Id.).
Plaintiff 	further 	alleges 	that 	deputies 	“helped 	3 	counts 	of 	false
imprisonment on [Plaintiff] for trying to do leave & expose [Defendant].”
(Id.). 	But a false imprisonment claim against a private citizen is an
action under state law—not federal law. 	See Johnson v. Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc., 437 F.3d 1112, 1116 (11th Cir. 2006) (“In Florida, the
tort of false imprisonment is defined as the unlawful restraint of a person
against his will, the gist of which action is the unlawful detention of the
plaintiff and the deprivation of his liberty.”) (cleaned up). 	And nowhere
Case 1:25-cv-00355-AW-ZCB Document 8 Filed 12/19/25 Page 3 of 5

4
in Plaintiff’s complaint does she cite any specific provision of federal law
to 	invoke 	the 	Court’s 	federal 	question 	jurisdiction 	under 	§ 	1331.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has not met her burden of establishing federal
question jurisdiction.
Although Plaintiff does not invoke diversity jurisdiction under §
1332, it is apparent that the complaint provides no basis for it. Plaintiff
states that both she and Defendant are residents of Hawthorne, Florida.
(Doc. 1 at 2). 	Therefore, there is no complete diversity between the
parties as required for diversity jurisdiction
Before 	recommending 	dismissal 	for 	lack 	of 	subject 	matter
jurisdiction, the Court provided Plaintiff with notice and an opportunity
to respond by way of the show cause order. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff, however,
has failed to respond.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	This case be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
2. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 19th day of December 2025.
/s/
Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00355-AW-ZCB Document 8 Filed 12/19/25 Page 4 of 5

5
Notice To The Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must
be 	filed 	within 	fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may 	appear 	on 	the
electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s 	internal 	use 	only 	and 	does 	not
control. 	An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all
other parties. 	A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation
waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 1:25-cv-00355-AW-ZCB Document 8 Filed 12/19/25 Page 5 of 5