LADD v. JONES

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
ANTHONY SAM LADD,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:26cv538/AW/ZCB
DIQUAN JONES,
Defendant.
/
AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this action by
filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	(Doc. 1). 	On
January 28, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case
should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 	(Doc. 3).
Plaintiff has responded to the show cause order.1 	(Doc. 5). 	Dismissal is
warranted for the reasons below.
1 On February 23, 2026, after providing notice and an opportunity to
respond (Doc. 3), the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that this case be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. (Doc. 4). On March 3, 2026, the Court received a document,
which it construes as a response to the show cause order (Doc. 3). 	(Doc.
5). The Clerk’s Office did not initially docket the response because it did
not include a case number. 	(Id. at 7). 	Plaintiff appears to have mailed
the response on February 11, 2026, before re-mailing it on February 25,
2026. 	(Id. at 1, 9). 	Accordingly, the Court vacated its prior Report and
Recommendation 	and 	now 	issues 	this 	Amended 	Report 	and
Case 3:26-cv-00538-AW-ZCB Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 7

2
Federal courts “are courts of limited jurisdiction.” 	Wu v. Liu, 131
F.4th 1295, 1298 (11th Cir. 2025). 	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 	or 	diversity 	jurisdiction, 	or
jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant. 	28 U.S.C. §§ 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. 	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
Recommendation, which considers Plaintiff’s response to the show cause
order.
Case 3:26-cv-00538-AW-ZCB Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 7

3
parties are residents 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).
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 has used the Court’s civil rights
complaint form for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases to assert his allegations. 	But
it is clear that § 1983 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction under
the facts alleged in the complaint. 	Plaintiff alleges he deposited a
$144,000 	check 	into 	Defendant’s 	bank 	account 	and 	that 	Defendant
(Plaintiff’s son) failed to give the funds back to Plaintiff. 	(Doc. 1 at 5-6).
Case 3:26-cv-00538-AW-ZCB Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 7

4
There are no allegations, however, indicating that Defendant is a state
actor, as opposed to a private party. 	See Charles v. Johnson, 18 F.4th
686, 694 (11th Cir. 2021) (explaining that § 1983 only applies to the
conduct of state actors).2 	Thus, § 1983 cannot provide the basis for this
Court to exercise federal question jurisdiction. 	See Ray v. Pate’s Chapel
Baptist Church & Cemetery, 2021 WL 5404636, at *3 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 18,
2021) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction because “the plaintiffs have sued
non-State actors for purely private acts”); see also McLaurin v. J.D.
Homes Mgmt., LLC, No. 1:11-CV-4321, 2012 WL 1716009, at *3 (N.D. Ga.
May 15, 2012) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction and explaining that
although the plaintiff’s complaint cited § 1983, “the claims asserted
against the non-state actors plainly do not implicate federal law”).
Plaintiff provides no other allegations or claims sufficient to invoke
the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Where the complaint form asks
Plaintiff to list federal laws at issue in this case, Plaintiff writes: “Abuse,
Neglect 	of 	a 	Elderly 	Suffering 	Mentally 	and 	Physical 	Anguish
Exploitation, Take Advantage of a Elderly Per ADA (American Disability
2 There are some situations where private individuals can be treated as
state actors for purposes of § 1983 liability. See Charles, 18 F.4th at 694.
But this is not one of those situations.
Case 3:26-cv-00538-AW-ZCB Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Act).” 	(Doc. 1 at 7). 	But most of these claims arise under Florida law
rather than federal law. And Plaintiff’s passing reference to the ADA is
insufficient to create federal question jurisdiction here. 	See Moorer v.
Trump, No. 3:21CV872-MCR-HTC, 2021 WL 4138702, at *2 (N.D. Fla.
July 16, 2021) (“The general rule governing pleading federal jurisdiction
requires more than a simple allegation that jurisdiction exists or citation
of a federal statute. Rather, it is required that the complaint clearly set
out the basic facts necessary to support the conclusion that there is
federal jurisdiction.”), adopted, 2021 WL 4134669 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 9,
2021). 	Indeed, Plaintiff’s allegation that his son improperly retained
Plaintiff’s check has no connection to the ADA. Accordingly, Plaintiff has
not met his burden of establishing federal question jurisdiction. 	See
O’Neal v. Allstate Indem. Ins. Co. Inc., No. 20-14712, 2021 WL 4852222,
at *2-3 (11th Cir. Oct. 19, 2021) (affirming dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction where the district court held that the plaintiff “failed
to allege a substantial, nonfrivolous federal claim that would implicate
the court’s federal question jurisdiction”).
Although Plaintiff’s complaint does not invoke diversity jurisdiction
under § 1332, the Court notes that there would be no basis for diversity
jurisdiction here. 	Plaintiff states that 	both 	he 	and 	Defendant 	are
Case 3:26-cv-00538-AW-ZCB Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 5 of 7

6
residents of Florida. 	(Doc. 1 at 2). 	So, there is no complete diversity
between the parties as required for diversity jurisdiction.3
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. 3). 	Plaintiff has
responded to the show cause order. (Doc. 5).
In the response, Plaintiff states that he received a $144,000 check
for back pay. 	A law firm in Indiana put the check in Defendant Jones’
bank account 	at Navy Federal Credit 	Union in Pensacola, 	Florida.
Plaintiff claims neither he, Defendant Jones, nor Navy Federal received
the check, but he knows that there “had to be some institution policies
and agreement procedures that’s been violated by law to consumers, bank
holders, and or 3rd party depositories.” 	(Id. at 1). 	Plaintiff’s response
continues by asking several questions about non-account holders cashing
3 In his response to the show cause order, Plaintiff mentions “diversity
jurisdiction” without any elaboration or explanation. 	(Doc. 5 at 2). 	To
the extent this unexplained use of the phrase “diversity jurisdiction” is
intended to assert that diversity jurisdiction exists here, the assertion
lacks merit. 	Plaintiff has identified his address as Lake City, Florida,
and the address of the listed Defendant is identified as Pensacola,
Florida. (Doc. 1 at 2). Thus, diversity of citizenship is lacking.
Case 3:26-cv-00538-AW-ZCB Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 6 of 7

7
checks and goes on to discuss the responsibilities banks owe to their
account holders. (Id. at 2-5).
Nothing in Plaintiff’s response shows a basis for the Court to have
subject matter jurisdiction over the allegations raised against Defendant
in the complaint. Because Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of
showing that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction, dismissal is
warranted. 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 6th day of March 2026.
/s/
Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
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 3:26-cv-00538-AW-ZCB Document 7 Filed 03/06/26 Page 7 of 7