UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 22-cv-23193-GAYLES

JOHN J. MCCARTHY, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

RON DESANTIS, Florida Governor, 

et al., 

 Defendants, 

______________________________/ 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record. Plaintiff, 

John J. McCarthy, appearing pro se, filed this action on October 3, 2022. [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff 

also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis the same day [ECF No. 4]. Because 

Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis, the screening provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), are applicable. Pursuant to that statute, the court is permitted 

to dismiss a suit “any time [] the court determines that . . . (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.” Id. § 1915(e)(2). 

The standards governing dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 

are the same as those governing dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Alba 

v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). To state a claim for relief, a pleading must 

contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . ; (2) a short 

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand 

for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. To survive a motion to dismiss, a claim “must contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” 

Case 1:22-cv-23193-DPG Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 1 of 3
2

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

570 (2007)). “[T]he pleadings are construed broadly,” Levine v. World Fin. Network Nat’l Bank, 

437 F.3d 1118, 1120 (11th Cir. 2006), and the allegations in the complaint are viewed in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir.

1998). At bottom, the question is not whether the claimant “will ultimately prevail . . . but whether 

his complaint [is] sufficient to cross the federal court’s threshold.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 

521, 530 (2011).

In his Complaint, Plaintiff attempts to assert a claim against Governor Ron DeSantis 

and unnamed federal agents for “send[ing] illegal immigrants by two planes to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts” in violation of the immigrants’ constitutional rights [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to properly allege standing. “[S]tanding is a threshold question that must be 

explored at the outset of any case.” Corbett v. Transp. Sec. Admin, 930 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 

2019). It is not a “mere pleading requirement[] but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case .

. . .” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). To establish Article III standing, “[t]he 

plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct 

of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. 

Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016) (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560–61). “In plainer language, the plaintiff 

needs to show that the defendant harmed him, and that a court decision can either eliminate the harm 

or compensate for it.” Muranksy v. Godiva, 979 F.3d 917, 924 (11th Cir. 2020). Here, Plaintiff has not 

alleged that he suffered an injury in fact that is traceable to the conduct of the Defendants. As a result, 

Plaintiff fails to allege standing, and this action must be dismissed without prejudice for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is

Case 1:22-cv-23193-DPG Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 2 of 3
3

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice and

CLOSED for administrative purposes. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 18th day of October, 2022.

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

` UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-23193-DPG Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2022 Page 3 of 3