BALDWIN v. STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
MARIO DECARLOS BALDWIN,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:26cv764/MCR/ZCB
STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff commenced this action pro se by filing a complaint. 	(Doc.
1). 	The 	complaint 	names 	the 	State 	Attorney’s 	Office 	as 	the 	sole
Defendant and brings only defamation claims. 	(Id.). 	On February 4,
2026, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, within
fourteen days, as to why his case should not be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. (Doc. 3). 	That deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not
responded. Accordingly, this matter should be dismissed.1
1 Additionally, Plaintiff’s complaint was not accompanied by the $405.00
fee for filing a civil case ($350.00 filing fee and $55.00 administrative fee),
or an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	This Court’s
Local Rules provide that a “party who files . . . 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.”
N.D. 	Fla. 	Loc. 	R. 	5.3. 	This 	is 	a 	separate 	and 	independent 	basis
supporting dismissal of Plaintiff’s case.
Case 3:26-cv-00764-MCR-ZCB Document 4 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. 	Bishop v. Reno,
210 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir. 2000). 	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. 	See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
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 well-pleaded complaint,
such as when federal law creates the cause of action that entitles the
plaintiff to relief. Abele v. Tolbert, 130 F. App’x 342, 343 (11th Cir. 2005).
Claims based on state law generally do not confer federal question
jurisdiction. See 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
parties are residents of different states and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. 	28 U.S.C. § 1332. 	Diversity jurisdiction requires that
the parties be “completely diverse,” meaning the plaintiff and defendant
Case 3:26-cv-00764-MCR-ZCB Document 4 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 4

3
cannot be citizens of the same state. 	Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. Osting-
Schwinn, 613 F.3d 1079, 1085-86 (11th Cir. 2010).
The burden to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction rests on
the party asserting it. 	Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411
F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005). 	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 Plaintiff’s complaint, it provides no basis for
federal question jurisdiction. 	Plaintiff does not reference federal law
anywhere in his complaint. Rather, he references defamation, which is a
state law claim. 	Plaintiff also fails to establish diversity jurisdiction.
Both he and Defendant (the “State Attorney Office in Escambia County”)
appear to be Florida residents. (Doc. 1 at 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. Plaintiff had until February
18, 2026, to explain why his case should not be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. He did not respond.
Case 3:26-cv-00764-MCR-ZCB Document 4 Filed 02/26/26 Page 3 of 4

4
For the reasons above, 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 26th day of February 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-00764-MCR-ZCB Document 4 Filed 02/26/26 Page 4 of 4