CLARK v. ROSENTHAL et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
LUCY CLARK,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 1:26-cv-97-RH-HTC
MICHAEL ROSENTHAL, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Lucy Clark, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint (Doc. 1) and motion
to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), which were received by this Court on April
28, 2026. 	After reviewing the complaint and Clark’s litigation history, the
undersigned recommends this case be DISMISSED without prejudice as malicious,
as it is duplicative of cases Clark has filed in district courts throughout the country.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the Court must dismiss an action that is
frivolous or malicious.1 The filing of a duplicative complaint is considered “an
1 By moving to proceed in forma pauperis, Clark has invoked the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). See Whitted v. Sarasota Mem’l Hosp., 2024 WL 4392784, at *1 n.1 (M.D. Fla.
Oct. 3, 2024) (construing a pro se litigant’s “failure to pay the filing fee as a request to proceed in
forma pauperis” when screening and dismissing his complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)). 	However, because this case should be dismissed sua sponte, the motion to
proceed in forma pauperis will be denied as moot by separate order.
Case 1:26-cv-00097-RH-HTC Document 5 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
Case No. 1:26-cv-97-RH-HTC
abuse of the judicial process” and the complaint “is properly dismissed without
prejudice as malicious[.]” Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021).
In this case, Clark’s complaint states, in its entirety:
1. Defendant Kevin Mcclanahan violated due process,
2. Defendant Michael Rosenthal conspired with Kevin Mcclanahan,
2. Plaintiff demands an award to be decided by the Court.
Doc. 1 at 1.
A review of Clark’s litigation history on PACER reveals she has filed the exact
same complaint against the same Defendants in numerous district courts throughout
the country. See e.g., D. Alaska Case No. 3:26-cv-179 (complaint docketed Apr. 28,
2026); D. Colo. Case No. 1:26-cv-1877 (complaint docketed Apr. 27, 2026); N.D.
Miss. Case No 3:26-cv-102 (complaint docketed Apr. 28, 2026); W.D. Mich. Case
No. 1:26-cv-1362 (complaint docketed Apr. 27, 2026).
Because this case is duplicative of cases Clark filed in other federal courts,
including cases that were opened before this one, this case should be dismissed
without prejudice as malicious.2 See Daker, 999 F.3d at 1310 (affirming dismissal
of complaint as malicious when complaint contained claims duplicative of claims
plaintiff had already asserted in two other pending civil actions).
2 Dismissal of this case is also appropriate because Clark’s complaint does not: (1) contain a short
and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction; (2) contain a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; or (3) show that venue is proper
in this district. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Case 1:26-cv-00097-RH-HTC Document 5 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
Case No. 1:26-cv-97-RH-HTC
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	This case be DISMISSED without prejudice as malicious under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
2. 	The clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 6 th day of May, 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 1:26-cv-00097-RH-HTC Document 5 Filed 05/06/26 Page 3 of 3