BRETT et al v. CLINTON et al

Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
FRANK BRETT,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 1:26-cv-112-RH/MJF
BILL CLINTON, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this
civil action against 29 defendants, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton,
Hunter Biden, YouTube, Inc., and others. Doc. 1 at 2. Because Plaintiff’s
claims are patently frivolous, the undersigned recommends that the
District Court dismiss this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
B ACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s complaint spans 39 hand-written pages. The complaint
is disorganized and mostly illegible and incomprehensible. Doc. 1 at 5–
39. Plaintiff appears to assert claims under “110 CAJ 71(B)D(1).” Id. at
7. 	As 	relief, 	he 	requests 	$100 	million 	from 	each 	Defendant 	and
Case 1:26-cv-00112-RH-MJF Document 6 Filed 05/13/26 Page 1 of 7

Page 2 of 7
injunctions against dozens of named individuals, many of whom are
deceased. Doc. 1 at 7 (errors in original).
D ISCUSSION
Because Plaintiff is proceeding 	in forma pauperis, the District
Court is required to review Plaintiff’s complaint for frivolity. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if the claim
lacks an arguable basis either in fact or in law. Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 32 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989);
Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993).
1. 	Plaintiff’s Complaint is Frivolous as a Factual Matter
A claim is factually frivolous when it lacks any arguable basis in
fact. Denton, 504 U.S. at 31; Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. Claims are frivolous
as a factual matter when they are based on fantastic, delusional, or
incredible “facts.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32-33; Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328; see
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 696 (2009) (noting that a claim is factually
baseless when the “allegations are sufficiently fantastic to defy reality as
we know it”).
Among other things, Plaintiff alleges:
• 	“Joe Biden has been lying, cheating and stealing from me since
1990”;
Case 1:26-cv-00112-RH-MJF Document 6 Filed 05/13/26 Page 2 of 7

Page 3 of 7
• 	“Jeff Epstein and 101 person gang of Rapist Murderers who
Raped Poor Virginia Roberts Giuffre, Britt Lewis on tape, Brian
Lorenzo on Tape, My Brother Federal Agent Ken Brett on Tape”;
• 	“Merrick Garland obstructed justice into all my cases with
Hunter Biden and Italian John and Italian Anthony . . . .”;
• 	“Don Trump was on Jeff Epsteins 727 Airplane 7 times from
1992 to 1997 at Teterboro Airport in Newark, NJ. with Melania
Trump + Ghislaine Maxwell + several underage girls”;
• 	“President Barack Obama – Refused to Prosecute President
George 	Bush 	Jr. 	for 	Falsifying 	documents 	into 	Silverado,
Colorado – skyscraper, went bankrupt”;
• 	“From Manhattan, NY, Joe Biden screwed all 3 men and me and
my whistleblowers claim and corruption claims”;
• 	“On 9/24/15 – I filed federal lawsuit in Manhattan, NY, against
Jeff Epstein Gang for Rape + Murder of 7,347 underage models
. . .”; and
• 	“There 	are 	around 	800 	Raped 	catholic 	Victims 	in 	Virginia
(Thank you, Governor).”
Doc. 1 at 5, 6, 9, 17, 34 (errors and emphases in original).
Plaintiff fails to articulate how any of these matters are related to
each other or how they support his claims. Additionally, Plaintiff’s factual
allegations are wholly incredible and completely irrelevant to any claim
he could possibly bring. Because Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous, and he
cannot cure this frivolity simply by an amendment of his complaint, the
Case 1:26-cv-00112-RH-MJF Document 6 Filed 05/13/26 Page 3 of 7

Page 4 of 7
District Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Gary v. U.S. Gov’t,
540 F. App’x 916, 916 (11th Cir. 2013).
2. 	Plaintiff’s Claims Lack Any Foundation in Law
In 	addition 	to 	asserting 	frivolous 	facts, 	Plaintiff’s 	claims 	are
frivolous as a matter of law, and he fails to assert a recognized legal
interest.
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law.
Denton, 504 U.S. at 31; Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. A district court may
dismiss a claim for its frivolity when it “is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A claim is frivolous as a
matter of law if it asserts an “infringement of a legal interest which
clearly does not exist.” Id. at 327-28.
Plaintiff attempts to assert a claim under “110 CAJ 71(B)D(1).” Doc.
1 at 7. No such statute exists. A non-existent statute obviously provides
no basis for a claim.
Because Plaintiff has not stated a legal basis for his claims, for this
reason as well, the District Court should dismiss this civil action. See
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
Case 1:26-cv-00112-RH-MJF Document 6 Filed 05/13/26 Page 4 of 7

Page 5 of 7
3. 	Plaintiff’s 	Long 	and 	Extensive 	History 	of 	Asserting
Frivolous Claims
In determining frivolousness, a district court also may consider a
litigant’s history of asserting frivolous claims. Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d
1346, 1350 (11th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff has a long history of filing frivolous civil actions. Indeed,
between 2006 and 2016, Plaintiff filed at least 148 lawsuits, nearly all of
which were dismissed because they were “deemed incomprehensible
and/or patently frivolous.” Brett v. Brown, No. 2:16-cv-6916-SVW (KES),
Doc. 6 at 1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016).
Additionally, because Plaintiff has filed multiple frivolous civil
actions in other districts, several district courts have curtailed Plaintiff’s
ability to file civil actions in those districts. These include (1) the District
of Delaware (Brett v. Unknown Black Women Jogger, No. 1:12-cv-1516-
GMS, Doc. 10 at 2 ¶ 1 (D. Del. Nov. 25, 2013)); (2) the Orlando Division
of the Middle District of Florida (Brett v. U.S. Marshall Rodriguez, No.
6:17-cv-313-Orl-18KRS, Doc. 9 at 2 ¶ 5 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2017)); (3) the
Southern District of Florida (Brett v. Mrs. Powel, No. 0:16-cv-60485-
KMM, Doc. 5 at 4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2016)); and (4) the Middle District
Case 1:26-cv-00112-RH-MJF Document 6 Filed 05/13/26 Page 5 of 7

Page 6 of 7
of Pennsylvania (Brett v. Trump, No. 1:21-cv-1059, Doc. 12 at 1 (M.D. Pa.
Aug. 16, 2022)).
Plaintiff’s long and extensive history of asserting frivolous claims
further indicates that Plaintiff is asserting frivolous claims in this civil
action and that the appropriate action is dismissal with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this action with prejudice.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 13th day of May 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The 	District 	Court 	referred 	this 	case 	to 	the
undersigned to address preliminary matters and to
make recommendations regarding dispositive matters.
See 	N.D. 	Fla. 	Loc. 	R. 	72.2(C); 	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
Case 1:26-cv-00112-RH-MJF Document 6 Filed 05/13/26 Page 6 of 7

Page 7 of 7
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
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th
Cir. 	Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636. The parties also are
advised that if they dispute the accuracy of any facts
taken from judicially-noticed documents, or if they
otherwise wish to be heard on the propriety of the
court taking judicial notice of those facts, they must
raise 	this 	issue 	in 	an 	objection 	to 	this 	report 	and
recommendation.
Case 1:26-cv-00112-RH-MJF Document 6 Filed 05/13/26 Page 7 of 7