ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT
DARRIN P. GAYLES, District Judge.
Independent of its duty under Section 1915(e) to evaluate the claim of a party proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is obligated to consider sua sponte whether a claim falls within its subject matter jurisdiction and dismiss the claim if it finds subject matter jurisdiction to be lacking.
(2) federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction pursu-ant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)." Baltin v. Alaron Tradin Corp., 128 F.3d 1466, 1469 (11th Cir. 1997).
Federal question jurisdiction exists if the plaintiff's suit "arises under" the "Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," and the issue "must appear on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint." Cmty. State Bank v. Strong, 651 F.3d 1241, 1251 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331). Generally, a case "arises under" federal law if federal law creates the cause of action, or if a substantial disputed issue of federal law is a necessary element of a state law claim. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9-10, 13 (1983). Given that the sole claim alleged in the Amended Tort Complaint arises under Florida state law, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.
The statute governing diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), requires complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants (meaning that all plaintiffs must have citi-zenships different from all defendants) and an amount in controversy of more than $75,000. See Payroll Mgmt., Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 815 F.3d 1293, 1297 n.5 (11th Cir. 2016). Nathaniel alleges that he is a citizen of Florida, and he brings suit against a Florida county sheriff's office. As both parties are citizens of Florida, diversity of citizenship does not exist and, as a result, neither does diversity jurisdiction.
In sum, the Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. Alter-natively, the Court is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) to dismiss the Amended Tort Complaint as frivolous. It is, therefore,