United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
E. MENDOZA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) and the United States of
America's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15). United States
Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R, ” Doc. 23),
recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment and grant the United States' Motion to
Dismiss. Judge Kelly reasoned that Plaintiff's Complaint
(Doc. 1) is due to be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to
allege standing and merely asserted generalized grievances
and because Plaintiff's Complaint violated Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8-it did not contain a short and plain
statement establishing that she has a right to relief. (Doc.
23 at 5). Additionally, Judge Kelly noted that this case is
Plaintiff's third attempt to invalidate the results of
the 2016 presidential election and that her previous two
cases were dismissed with prejudice. (Id.). Thus,
Judge Kelly concluded that this Court is without jurisdiction
to grant that particular request for relief. (Id.).
subsequently filed an Objection to the R&R (Doc. 24).
Plaintiff argues that by submitting the R&R, Judge Kelly
arbitrarily and capriciously deprived her of her
constitutional right to litigate this case. However,
Plaintiff wholly fails to address the reasons articulated in
Judge Kelly's R&R supporting his recommendations.
Plaintiff only makes conclusory allegations in an attempt to
persuade this Court to reject the R&R. For example, she
argues that Judge Kelly erred in determining that her
Complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact because
her claims are based on the Constitution. Additionally,
Plaintiff-without more-states that she has standing to bring
her claims and that her Complaint “absolutely complies
with” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (Id.
at 7). While it appears that Plaintiff attempts to provide a
short and concise statement of facts in support of her
claims, (see Id. at 12-19), her Objection-much like
her Complaint-is “a rambling diatribe against the
federal government and its leaders that contains random
thoughts and tangents loosely strung together.” (Doc.
23 at 5). Accordingly, after a de novo review, the
Court agrees entirely with the analysis in the R&R.
as Judge Kelly noted, this is Plaintiff's third attempt
to sue the United States for various grievances.
(Id.). Plaintiff's second suit and the instant
matter involved similar claims and have both been found to be
frivolous. (See generally Jo Ann Johnson v. United
States, No. 6:17-cv-64-Orl-40TBS (M.D. Fla. June 6,
2017), Doc. 30; No. 6:17-cv-1390-Orl-41GJK, Doc. 23). With
that in mind, this Court recognizes that an injunction
subjecting an individual's purported complaints to a
pre-screening requirement is an appropriate method for
defending the judicial system from abusive and vexatious
litigation. See Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d
1384, 1386- 87 (11th Cir. 1993); Copeland v. Green,
949 F.2d 390, 391 (11th Cir. 1991). The district court
possesses considerable discretion in fashioning such an
injunction; however, it may not completely foreclose the
litigant from any and all access to the court.
Martin-Trigona, 986 F.2d at 1387. Under the present
circumstances, the Court determines that such an injunction
is appropriate. As a result of Plaintiff's filings, this
Court has been, on numerous occasions, required to divert its
attention away from legitimate cases involving litigants who
have complied with the relevant rules and procedures and who
wish to have their cases decided in a timely fashion. This
type of vexatious litigation is an undue drain on limited
judicial resources, and the Court will require that
Plaintiff's future filings be pre-screened by a
magistrate judge to determine if they are frivolous.
accordance with the foregoing, it is ORDERED
and ADJUDGED as follows:
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23) is
ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and
made a part of this Order.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) is
United States of America's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is
Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with
Clerk is directed to close this case.
FURTHER ORDERED as follows:
future filing Plaintiff presents to the Clerk's Office in
the Orlando Division for filing shall be specially handled in
the following manner. Instead of filing the document on the
docket, the Clerk's Office shall forward it to the senior
Magistrate Judge in the Orlando Division for review and
screening. The Magistrate Judge will determine whether the
filing has arguable merit-that is, a material basis in law
and fact. If the filing is arguably meritorious, the
Magistrate Judge will direct the Clerk of Court to file the
document on the docket in the ordinary fashion. In the event
the senior Magistrate Judge's preliminary review results
in a finding that Plaintiff's filing is frivolous, said
filing will not be filed with the Court but instead will be
returned to Plaintiff. Upon such a finding, Plaintiff may be
subject to further sanctions, including monetary assessment.