WILLIAMS v. JIMENEZ et al

Page 1 of 5
NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
LUCAS WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 4:26-cv-4-RH-MJF
SERGIO JIMENEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Lucas Williams filed a three-sentence complaint against
Defendants in over forty federal district courts, including the Northern
District of Florida. The undersigned preliminarily screened Williams’s
complaint 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1915(e)(2). 	Because 	the 	facts 	as
presented in the complaint failed to state a facially plausible claim for relief
against the named Defendants, the District Court should dismiss this civil
action.
BACKGROUND
On January 6, 2026, Williams commenced this civil action with a one-
page complaint. Williams alleges:
Case 4:26-cv-00004-RH-MJF Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
1. Upon 	information 	and 	belief, 	Defendants 	conspired 	with
individuals 	in 	LT-325749-22/KI, 	in 	which 	the 	next 	court
appearance 	is 	scheduled 	for 	2/4/26 	before 	Defendant 	Sergio
Jimenez.
2. All defendants conspired together in violation of due process.
3. The Court has jurisdiction under federal law.
Doc. 1 ¶¶ 1–3.
The undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915, and, on January 9, 2026, the undersigned advised Williams that his
complaint 	failed 	to 	state 	a 	plausible 	claim 	for 	relief. 	Doc. 	5. 	The
undersigned ordered Williams to file an amended complaint or a notice of
voluntary dismissal. Id. The undersigned imposed a compliance deadline
of January 30, 2026, and warned Williams that the failure to comply with
the order likely would result in dismissal of this civil action for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. Williams has not
complied with that order.
D ISCUSSION
Williams is proceeding in forma pauperis. Therefore, the District
Court is required to review his complaint and dismiss any claim that is
Case 4:26-cv-00004-RH-MJF Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A civil complaint filed in federal
court must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Determining
whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted is
governed by the standard set forth in Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d
1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997).
As noted above, Williams’s complaint consists of three sentences,
which 	are 	nothing 	more 	than 	“the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me”
accusations. 	Doc. 	1 	¶¶ 	1–3. 	Williams 	offers 	no 	facts 	to 	support 	his
conclusion that Defendants conspired against Williams. Williams’s vague
allegations do not include basic facts such as what happened, when it
happened, where it happened, and how Williams suffered any injury
because of Defendants’ actions or omissions. Williams’s complaint plainly
violates Rule 8’s pleading standard. Furthermore, Williams has elected not
to file an amended complaint that corrects the pleading deficiency despite
Case 4:26-cv-00004-RH-MJF Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
the undersigned affording him an opportunity to do so.1 The District Court,
therefore, should dismiss this civil action with prejudice because Williams
fails to state a plausible claim for relief.
C ONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS with prejudice, 	pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a plausible claim for relief; and
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 3rd day of February 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
1 This also indicates that Williams has abused the judicial process and that
this suit is malicious. In one week, Williams filed the same deficient
complaint in over forty federal district courts. Williams’s duplicative,
deficient filings coupled with his failure to correct the defects suggests that
Williams intended to harass Defendants rather than initiate legitimate
litigation against Defendants. “[A] plaintiff’s duplicative complaint is an
abuse of the judicial process and is properly dismissed” as malicious under
28 U.S.C. § 1915. Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021);
accord 	McWilliams 	v. 	Colorado, 	121 	F.3d 573, 	574 (10th 	Cir. 	1997);
Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846
F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309
(D.C. Cir. 1981).
Case 4:26-cv-00004-RH-MJF Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge 	to 	address 	preliminary 	matters 	and 	to 	make
recommendations 	regarding 	dispositive 	matters. 	See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C);
Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b). 	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. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 4:26-cv-00004-RH-MJF Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 5