JUNKINS v. DISCOVERY TIME PLAYSCHOOL LLC et al

Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
SETH MACVICAR JUNKINS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:26cv119-MCR-HTC
DISCOVERY TIME
PLAYSCHOOL, LLC, et al.
Defendants.
__________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Seth Junkins, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint against
Discovery Time Playschool, LLC, and Hannah Billingsley, alleging they violated his
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing him
from seeing his daughter at daycare. 	Doc. 1. 	After reviewing the complaint, the
undersigned concludes this case should be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, as
the complaint does not contain a non-frivolous federal claim and Junkins has not
shown the parties are diverse.1
1 Junkins also failed to comply with the Court’s Local Rules by not paying the $405 filing fee or
filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.3 (“A party who files or
removes a civil case must simultaneously either pay any fee required under 28 U.S.C. § 1914 or
move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). This failure provides an
independent basis for dismissal.
Case 3:26-cv-00119-MCR-HTC Document 3 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
Case No. 3:26cv119-MCR-HTC
Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party. 	Arbaugh v.
Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). 	When a federal court concludes it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Id.;
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action”). Federal courts must
have one of three types of subject-matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a
specific statutory grant; (2) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or
(3) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp.,
128 F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside
[of federal courts’] limited jurisdiction, … and the burden of establishing the
contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction[.]” 	Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted).
Here, Junkins’ complaint indicates he is attempting to invoke the Court’s
federal question jurisdiction. 	However, he has not alleged a non-frivolous federal
claim. 	While he suggests the Defendants violated § 1983 and the Fourteenth
Amendment, those provisions of law can only be used to sue state actors. See Harvey
v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127, 1130 (11th Cir. 1992) (To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, a plaintiff must allege “the conduct complained of (1) was committed by a
person acting under color of state law and (2) deprived the complainant of rights,
Case 3:26-cv-00119-MCR-HTC Document 3 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
Case No. 3:26cv119-MCR-HTC
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”)
(citation omitted); Buxton v. City of Plant City, Fla., 871 F.2d 1037, 1041 (11th Cir.
1989) (“[T]he fourteenth amendment, section 1, restrains the states, from depriving
any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”). The Defendants
are a private daycare and a private citizen; nothing in the complaint indicates they
could be liable for a constitutional violation as a state actor.2 Because Junkins’
federal 	claims 	are 	frivolous, they do not provide a basis for subject-matter
jurisdiction. See Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Sanders, 138 F.3d 1347, 1352
(11th Cir. 1998) (a federal court may dismiss a federal question claim for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction if such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous)
(citation omitted).
Furthermore, 	Junkins 	has 	failed 	to 	establish 	the 	Court 	has 	diversity
jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have jurisdiction over
actions between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. 	However, the complaint indicates both Junkins and Billingsley reside in
Florida, and nothing suggests there is complete diversity between the parties. 	See
McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002) (the plaintiff bears the
2 Junkins indicates he was trespassed from the daycare. 	Even if the Defendants contacted law
enforcement to have Junkins removed from the daycare’s premises, that would not be sufficient to
make the Defendants state actors. See Kelly v. Broward Sheriff’s Office Dep’t of Det.’s, 560 F.
App’x 818, 821 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Merely making a report of perceived misconduct and furnishing
information to the police” does not transform a private party into a state actor.).
Case 3:26-cv-00119-MCR-HTC Document 3 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
Case No. 3:26cv119-MCR-HTC
burden of proving there is proper diversity jurisdiction); McDonald v. Equitable Life
Ins. Co. of Iowa, 13 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 1280 (M.D. Ala. 1998) (“[F]or diversity
jurisdiction to exist, there must be ‘complete diversity,’ that is, each defendant must
be a citizen of a state different from that of each plaintiff.”) (citations omitted).
Because Junkins has not established this case involves a non-frivolous question of
federal law, or that the Court has diversity jurisdiction, the case should be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
1. 	That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice due to lack of
jurisdiction.
2. 	That the clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 14 th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen (14) 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 its objections upon
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 the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.
Case 3:26-cv-00119-MCR-HTC Document 3 Filed 01/14/26 Page 4 of 4