Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00480/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00480-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chiquitta Clemons
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHIQUITTA CLEMONS, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-00480-KD-B

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

:

 Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Chiquitta Clemons, who is proceeding pro se, 

filed a self-styled complaint and a motion to proceed without 

prepayment of fees. (Docs. 1, 2). Clemons’ motion was referred 

to the undersigned for appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(S). After careful 

consideration of Clemons’ complaint and motion, the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge recommends that this action be dismissed 

without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and 

that Clemons’ motion be denied as moot.

A. Applicable Law

Because Clemons is seeking to proceed without prepayment of 

fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)1 requires the Court to consider 

 1 Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides:

 (2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion 

thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 

Case 1:15-cv-00480-KD-B Document 3 Filed 10/30/15 Page 1 of 9
2

whether her complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state 

claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief 

against a defense who is immune from such relief. Troville v. 

Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying to nonprisoner actions § 1915(e), which requires the dismissal of 

actions that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim, 

or sue an immune party for damages). The court is mindful that 

in evaluating Clemons’ complaint, pro se pleadings are held to a 

less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and 

are to be liberally construed. Miller v. Donald, 541 F. 3d 1091, 

1100 (llth Cir. 2008).

Additionally, because federal courts are courts of limited 

jurisdiction; the court must inquire into its subject matter 

jurisdiction, even when a party has not challenged it. See

Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (llth Cir. 

 

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines 

that –

 (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or

 (B) the action or appeal –

 (i) is frivolous or malicious;

 (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted; or

 (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant

who is immune from such relief.

Case 1:15-cv-00480-KD-B Document 3 Filed 10/30/15 Page 2 of 9
3

1999). If a complaint's factual allegations do not assure the 

court it has subject matter jurisdiction, then the court is 

without power to do anything in the case. See Goodman ex rel. 

Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F. 3d 1327, 1331, n.6 (11th Cir. 2001) ("A 

federal court must always dismiss a case upon determining that 

it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”); see also Belleri v. 

United States, 712 F.3d 543, 547 (11th Cir. 2013) ("We may not 

consider the merits of [a] complaint unless and until we are 

assured of our subject matter jurisdiction.").

A plaintiff must have standing to bring a suit before a 

court. Wooden v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 247 F.3d 

1262, 1273-74 (11th Cir. 2001). To establish standing, a 

plaintiff must meet both the constitutional and prudential 

standing requirements. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 

242 F. 3d 539, 560 (5th Cir. 2001). Prudential standing explores 

whether the plaintiff is attempting to assert her own legal 

rights and interests, or those of a third party. See St. Paul 

Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Labuzan, 579 F.3d 533, 539 (5th Cir. 

2009). Indeed, “[t]he standing inquiry “requires careful 

judicial examination of a complaint's allegations to ascertain 

whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication 

of the particular claims asserted."” Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 

1199, 1205 (llth Cir. 2006)(quotation omitted). In order to 

Case 1:15-cv-00480-KD-B Document 3 Filed 10/30/15 Page 3 of 9
4

establish that she has standing, a plaintiff must show that: (1) 

she has suffered an injury in fact; (2) there is a causal 

connection between the injury and the defendant's conduct; and 

(3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the 

injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Wooden, 247 

F.3d at 1273-74. "These three elements are the irreducible 

minimum required by the Constitution for a plaintiff to proceed 

in federal court." Id. at 1274 (quotation omitted). And, it is 

the plaintiff's burden to demonstrate that she has standing to 

bring a complaint. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 

561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).

II. Analysis

Based upon a careful review of Clemons’ complaint, it does 

not appear that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over 

this action because Clemons lacks standing to pursue the claims. 

In the complaint, Clemons indicates that she is seeking to bring 

this action on behalf of the Green Store, LLC. Although the 

complaint is not the model of clarity; it appears that Clemons 

is attempting to challenge a decision by the United States 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service 

(hereinafter “USDA”) disqualifying the Green Store, LLC from 

further participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (“SNAP”). While Clemons indicates that she was 

Case 1:15-cv-00480-KD-B Document 3 Filed 10/30/15 Page 4 of 9
5

operating or doing business under the name of “the Green Store, 

LLC”, as best the court can discern, it was the Green Store, 

LLC, as opposed to Plaintiff Chiquitta Clemons, that 

participated in and was terminated from the SNAP program. Thus, 

that is the entity that has allegedly suffered a legally 

cognizable injury. See Riggins v. Polk County, 602 Fed. Appx. 

765 (llth Cir. 2015)(court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal 

of the plaintiff’s action seeking to challenge a municipality’s 

bidding process because the plaintiff lacked standing where it 

was the corporation rather than the plaintiff that participated 

in the bidding process and suffered the alleged injury); KMS 

Rest. Corp., v. Wendy’s Int’l, Inc., 361 F.3d 1321, 1324-25 

(llth Cir. 2004)(holding that a shareholder lacks standing to 

maintain an action to redress injuries to a corporation in his 

own name.); Parks v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 2013 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 44565 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 6, 2013)(plaintiff lacked 

standing to bring action in her capacity as former owner and 

officer of corporation because, “with the exception of 

derivative actions. . . an action to enforce corporate rights or 

redress injuries to a corporation must be brought in the name of 

the corporation itself.”); Jinho So v. U.S. Dept. of Agric. Food 

& Nutrition Serv., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54684 (N.D. Tx., April 

15, 2011)(Where the individual plaintiffs sought to challenge a 

Case 1:15-cv-00480-KD-B Document 3 Filed 10/30/15 Page 5 of 9
6

convenience store’s temporary termination from the SNAP program, 

the court held that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing 

because the convenience store was operated under the name of a 

corporation; thus, it was the corporation, as opposed to the 

individual plaintiffs, who was the aggrieved party). 

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Clemons’ 

complaint contesting the Green Store, LLC’s termination from the 

SNAP program be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B) for lack of standing. To the extent Clemons can 

establish standing, by proffering facts that demonstrate that 

she, as opposed to the Green Store, LLC, suffered a legally 

cognizable injury, she should file objections to this order, and 

include an amended complaint. Clemons is cautioned that to the 

extent she seeks to pursue claims on behalf of the Green Store, 

LLC., extant case law provides that a corporation must be 

represented in federal court by a licensed attorney and cannot 

appear through an officer or shareholder. See Rowland v. 

California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202, 113 S. Ct. 716, 721, 

121 L.Ed. 2d 656 (1993); Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 

1381, 1385 (llth Cir. 1985)(“Corporations and partnerships, both 

of which are fictional legal persons, obviously cannot appear 

for themselves personally. With regard to these two types of 

business associations, the long standing and consistent court 

Case 1:15-cv-00480-KD-B Document 3 Filed 10/30/15 Page 6 of 9
7

interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1654 is that they must be 

represented by licensed counsel.”); Riggins v. Polk County, 602 

Fed. Appx. 765 (llth Cir. 2015)(reaffirming well-established 

rule that a corporation cannot appear pro se and must be 

represented by counsel). 

The instructions which follow the undersigned’s signature 

contain important information regarding objections to the report 

and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

DONE this 30th day of October, 2015.

 

 /s/ Sonja F. Bivins a 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00480-KD-B Document 3 Filed 10/30/15 Page 7 of 9
8

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects 

to this recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen 

(14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. GenLR 72(c). The parties 

should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party 

failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or 

recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives 

the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order 

based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the 

party was informed of the time period for objecting and the 

consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of 

a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for 

plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. 

R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an objection must identify the 

specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, 

state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed 

determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

Case 1:15-cv-00480-KD-B Document 3 Filed 10/30/15 Page 8 of 9
9

reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge 

is not specific. 

Case 1:15-cv-00480-KD-B Document 3 Filed 10/30/15 Page 9 of 9