### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT S eptember7, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1154 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00023 -CV -3-MCR- EMT LA W RENCE L. BL AN KENS HI P, P la int if f- Appe llant, ve rs us ST EP HEN C LAUS , D efendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f or the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 7, 200 5) Before AN DE RSO N, CA RNE S and W IL SO N, Circuit Judges PE R CU RIA M: La wr en ce L. B l an k en s h i p , p ro ce ed i n g p ro s e, ap p ea l s th e d i s tri ctco u rt ’s
o r d e r d i s mi s s i n g h i s c o mp l a i n tf o r l a c ko f s ub j e c tma t t e r

j u r i s d i c t i o n . We a f

f i rm.2 I. O n January

7, 200 5, Bl an ke nshi p se nt a w ri tte n r eque st t o S te phe n C laus, pr ote ct ive inv es tig at or

f or the F lor ida

D ep ar tm en t of Ch ildre n and F am ili es , f or re ports and r ec or ds p er

ta ini ng t o th e pot en tia l a

buse , ne gle ct , or

e xpl oit at ionof

the la te Ersk in D. Blan ke ns hi p, Sr . by th e st aff a t a P en sa co lahe al th care faci li ty. D CF , w hic h de nie d B lanke nshi p’ s r eque st, r ep lie d th at F lor ida lawpr ohi bit ed

the
re le as e of E ar ne st B lanke nshi p, S r. ’ s r ec or ds. S ee F la
. S tat. § 41 5. 107( 1) (p ro vid ing that “ al l r ec or ds c onc er nin g r ep orts o f ab use , ne gle ct , and e xpl oit at ion of [ a] vul ne ra

ble a dul t, inc lud ing r ep orts m ad e to the c en tr al abuse hot lin e, and a ll
re co rd s ge ne rate d a s ar es ult of suc h r ep orts s ha ll be c onf ide nti al
. . . and m ay

not be di sc lo se d e xc ep t as sp eci fic al ly aut ho riz ed ”). A ft er D CF de nie d hi m

a cc es s to the r ec or ds, Bl an ke nshi p su ed Cl au s in fe de ra l di str ic t c ourt i n P en sa co la
. B lanke nshi p so ught ac ourt or de r autho ri zi ng him to ins pe ct

and c opy D CF ’ s r ec or ds o n B lanke nshi p, S r. I n hi s c om pla int , Blankenship contended that th e district court’ s jur isdictio n arose fr om 28 U. S. C. § 13 31 b ec au se his c la im w as ba se d up on the F re ed om of I nf orm at ionA ct

( “ the FO IA ”), 5 U. S. C. § 552
. He also alleged that the am ountin controversy exceeded $10,000
. The district court dism issed the com plaint for lack of subjec t m atter j ur isd ic tio n.3

Blankenship contends th at the district court err ed. He argues that the court sh ou ldha ve su a sp on te gra nt edhi m lea ve to am en d h is co m

pl ai nt . II. W e re vie wde nov o th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of ac om pla int f or la ck of subj ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n. S am co G lob al Arm s, I nc . v. A ri ta , 395 F . 3d 1 212, 1214 n.4 (11th Cir. 2005 ). T here are tw o bases of federa l court subject m atter j ur isd ic tio n. O ne , div er sity j ur isd ic tio n, e xis ts i f “ the m atte r in c ontro ve rs y ex ce ed s th e sum

or va lue of $75 , 000, e xc lus ive of

int er es t and c ost s, and i s betwee n citizens of differe nt States.” 28 U. S. C. § 133 2(a)( 1). The other, f ederal que sti on j ur isd ic tio n, appl ie s to “ al l c ivi l a ct ion s ari sin g un de r the Co nst itutio n, la ws, o r tr eat ie s o f th e Uni te d S ta te s.” Id . § 1 33 1. D ive rs ity j ur isd ic tio n do es not

e xis t i n th is c as e be ca

use Bl an ke nshi p co nc ed ed that a ll of

the part ie s are c iti ze ns o f Fl or ida
. I n a ddi tio n, he did not al le ge th atth e am ou ntin co nt ro ve rs y ex ceed ed$7 5,0 00
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso la ck ed f ed er al que sti on j ur isd ic tio n be ca use Blankenship ’ s FOI A c laim does not arise und er the C onsti tutio n, law s, or tr eaties of the United State s as required by 28 U. S. C. § 133 1. A sserting his rights un der th e FOIA, Bl an ke ns hi p s ue d a n a ge nc y of t he st at e o f Fl or id a. The F OIA, h o w e v e r , e x e mp t s s t a t e a g e n c i e s f r o m i t s c o v e r a g e . Un d e r

th e F O I A , “ ‘a g e n c y’4

m eans e ac h auth or ity

of the G ove rn m en t of

the U nit ed

S tate s” but

e xpr es sly
ex cl ude s th e autho ri tie s of the state s. S ee 5 U . S. C. § 55 1( 1) (c ). B ec au se Bl an ke ns hi p s ou gh t t he reco rd s fr om a st at e au th or it y , th e FOIA co ul d n otap pl y . A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y dis m iss ed

Bl an ke nshi p’ s c om

pla int f or la ck of sub j ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n. Bl an ke nshi p’ s arg um en t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have sua spo nte gr an te d hi m

le av e to am en d hi s c om

pla int f ai ls b ec au se an am en dm en t w oul d have pr ov en fut il e. InW ag ne r v. D ae w oo H eavy I ndus tr ie s A m er ic a Co rp . , 314 F . 3d 5 41, 542 (1 1thCi r. 200 2) ( enbanc ), w e he ld tha t a dis tr ic t c ourt w as not

r equir ed sua spon te to gr an t a

c ouns el ed

party le av e to am en d hi s c om

pla int w he n no m oti on t o am en d w as f

ile d. B ut, w e spe ci fi ca lly state d th at

the W ag ne r opi nio n “ de ci de [d ]
an d in tim at e[ d] nothin g a bout aparty pr oc ee din g pr o se . ” I d. a t 54 2 n. 1. W e have em phasized that “ [p] ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent stand ard than pleadings drafted by

attorney s and will, ther efore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum

v. United States, 148 F. 3d 12 62, 1263 (11t h Cir. 1998 ). E ve n li be ra l c onstru ct ion , how ev er , c annot inv en t f ed er al j ur isd ic tio n f

or Bl an ke nshi p’ s c la im s. B ec au se Bl an ke nshi p se ek s in fo rm at ionf ro m an a ge nc y

of the state of

F lor ida , no am en dm en t w ill c re at e div er sity j ur isd ic tio n, and n oth ing5

will confer

feder al question j urisdictio n und er the F OI A. In his appellate brief, Bl an ke nshi p m en tio ns n o othe r fe de ra l st at ute that w oul d gr an t hi m

a cc es s to the requested inform ation. T hus, any am endm ent would be futile. S ee H all v. United In s. Co
. of

A m er ic a, 367 F . 3d 1 255, 126 2 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4) ( hol din g th at “ de nia l of le av e to am en d is j ust if

ie d by f uti lity w he n th e co m

pla int a s am en de d is sti ll subj ec t t o di sm iss al ”)
. A s ar es ult , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in fa ili ng t o gr an t Bl an ke nshi p le av e to am en d hi s c om pla int
. AFFIRMED.