EVANS MICKENS et al v. BAKER et al

Page 1 of 20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
GLORIA EVANS MICKENS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	Case No. 4:25-cv-102-AW/MJF
CIRCUIT COURT SECOND
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, et al.,
Defendants.
/
THIRD REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs assert claims based on: (1) the death of Bobby Evans; (2)
the probate proceeding for the Estate of Bobby Evans, and (3) a wrongful
death suit Plaintiffs previously had initiated in a Florida court. Plaintiffs
have attempted to sue twenty Defendants. Four Defendants—(1) Scott &
Wallace, LLP, (2) Robert Scott, (3) J. Clint Wallace, and (4) Jami A.
Coleman—move to dismiss on various grounds. Docs. 26, 55. Plaintiffs
oppose these motions. Docs. 30, 58. The District Court should dismiss this
civil 	action 	against 	all 	remaining 	Defendants 	because 	Plaintiffs’
amended complaint is a so-called “shotgun pleading.” Also, as to the four
Defendants who move for dismissal, to the extent anyone can discern
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 1 of 20

Page 2 of 20
intelligible claims in Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, Plaintiffs have failed
to comply with the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b) applicable
to some claims, and Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief
can be granted.
BACKGROUND
A. 	The Undersigned’s Order to Correct Multiple Deficiencies
On March 5, 2025, Plaintiffs commenced this civil action with a
complaint that was a quintessential “shotgun pleading.” Doc. 1. Because
Plaintiffs’ 	initial 	complaint 	suffered 	from 	obvious 	deficiencies, 	the
undersigned 	struck 	the 	complaint 	and 	ordered 	Plaintiffs 	to 	file 	an
amended complaint. Doc. 4. The undersigned provided Plaintiffs with
specific 	instructions 	to 	ensure 	that 	Plaintiffs 	corrected 	the 	many
deficiencies of their initial complaint, all to no avail. Id. at 9–10.
B. 	Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint
On March 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. Doc.
6. Plaintiffs allege that in November 2021, a motor vehicle struck Bobby
Evans, which resulted in his death. Doc. 6 at 7. Plaintiffs are the siblings
of Bobby Evans, although they never mention this in their amended
complaint. Doc. 33 at 1.
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 2 of 20

Page 3 of 20
On November 3, 2021, Plaintiff Otis Evans retained Defendants
Robert Scott and J. Clint Wallace—attorneys affiliated with the firm
Scott & Wallace LLP—to represent Bobby Evans’s estate in a wrongful
death suit. Doc. 6 at 8. On December 7, 2021, Plaintiff Otis Evan retained
Jamie Coleman—an attorney affiliated with the law firm Williams &
Coleman, 	P.A.—to 	represent 	Bobby 	Evans’s 	estate 	in 	the 	probate
proceeding. Id.
On 	January 	5, 	2022, 	in 	probate 	Case 	Number 	21000506CPA,
Defendant Judge David Frank appointed Plaintiff Otis Evans as the
personal representative of the estate of Bobby Evans.1 Id. Plaintiff Otis
Evans 	signed 	a 	“POWER 	OF 	ATTORNEY 	BI 	RELEASE-SINGLE
PERSON AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT STATEMENT,” which
Plaintiffs contend was “fraudulent.” Id.
On September 8, 2022, Judge David Frank entered an order of
discharge in the probate proceeding. Id. at 9; Doc. 30-4.
On July 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a civil lawsuit in the Second
Judicial Circuit in and for Gadsden County against several Defendants,
1 Although Judge David Frank shares the undersigned’s surname, the
undersigned is not related to this Defendant.
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 3 of 20

Page 4 of 20
including Scott, Wallace, Scot & Wallace LLP, Coleman, and Williams &
Coleman, P.A. See Doc. 6 at 9–10. Judge David Frank was the assigned
judge. The claims in the Florida civil case appear—to the extent any
salient facts can be discerned from Plaintiffs’ amended complaint in the
instant action—to be predicated on: (1) the execution of the “fraudulent”
“POWER 	OF 	ATTORNEY 	BI 	RELEASE-SINGLE 	PERSON
AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT STATEMENT”; and (2) the effect of
the settlement statement on the probate proceeding. On November 30,
2023, Judge David Frank dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice
for failure to state a claim for relief. Id. at 10; Doc. 26-3.
C. 	Plaintiffs’ Claims Against the Four Defendants Who Move
for Dismissal
Plaintiffs assert the following fourteen claims against the four
Defendants who move for dismissal:
• 	Count I: “Due Process – Violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981,
1983, and 1985(3), 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII;”
• 	Count II: “Procedural Due Process – Violation of 42 U.S.C.
Sections 1981, 1983, and 1985(3), 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title
VII;”
• 	Count III: “Substantive Due Process – Violation of 42 U.S.C.
Sections 1981, 1983, and 1985(3), 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title
VII;”
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 4 of 20

Page 5 of 20
• 	Count IV: “Equal Protection – Violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections
1981, 1983, and 1985(3), 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII;”
• 	Count V: “Discrimination Based on Race – Violation of 1964
Civil Rights Act Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1983, and
1985(3);”
• 	Count VI: “Retaliation – Violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983
and 1985(3), Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000a;”
• 	Count VII: “Conspiracy – Violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981,
1983, and 1985(3), 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII;”
• 	Count VIII: “Fraud Upon the Court – Violation of 42 U.S.C.
Sections 1981, 1983, and 1985(3), 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title
VII;”
• 	Count XIII: “Civil Conspiracy – Violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections
1983 and 1985(3);”
• 	Count XIV: “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress–
Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 1985(3);”
• 	Count XV: “Fraud – Violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and
1985(3);”
• 	Count XVI: “Breach of Contract – Violation of 42 U.S.C.
Sections 1983 and 1985(3);”
• 	Count XVII: “Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Violation of 42
U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985(3);” and
• 	Count VXIII: “Malpractice – Violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections
1983 and 1985(3).”
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 5 of 20

Page 6 of 20
Plaintiffs 	seek 	$5,000,000.00 	per 	claim 	and 	punitive 	damages 	of
$25,000,000.00 per claim. Doc. 6 at 11.
D ISCUSSION
Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are governed by Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To survive a motion to
dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation and citation omitted). A claim
is plausible on its face where “the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citation omitted).
A. 	Plaintiffs Failed to Comply with Rule 8(a) and Rule 10(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). This means that “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic
Corp. 	v. 	Twombly, 	550 U.S. 	544, 	570 	(2007)). 	Furthermore, 	a civil
complaint filed in federal court must contain “numbered paragraphs,
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 6 of 20

Page 7 of 20
each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 10(b).
The purpose of these rules is “to require the pleader to present his
claims discretely and succinctly” so the opposing party and the court can
discern the nature of the plaintiff’s claims. Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d
1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting 	Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty.
Sheriff’s 	Off., 	792 	F.3d 	1313, 	1320 	(11th 	Cir. 	2015)). 	Additionally,
compliance with these rules allows courts to “determine ‘which facts
support which claims,’ [and] ‘whether the plaintiff has stated any claims
upon which relief can be granted.’” Id. (quoting Weiland, 792 F.3d at
1320).
“A so-called ‘shotgun pleading’ is a complaint that violates Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or 10(b), or both.” Toth v. Antonacci, 788
F. App’x 688, 690 (11th Cir. 2019). “A district court has the ‘inherent
authority to control its docket and ensure the prompt resolution of
lawsuits,’ which includes the ability to dismiss a complaint on shotgun
pleading grounds.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295
(11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320). A district court that
receives a shotgun pleading must sua sponte give a plaintiff “one chance
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 7 of 20

Page 8 of 20
to replead.” Id. at 1296. But once a pro se litigant has been given that
opportunity to remedy the deficiencies and squanders the opportunity by
filing another shotgun pleading, the district court has the authority to
dismiss the complaint on shotgun pleading grounds. Id. at 1295; Byrne v.
Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1133 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Foudy v. Indian
River Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (“Federal
courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint for failure to
comply with a court order.”) (citations omitted).
Plaintiffs’ initial complaint violated Rule 8(a) and Rule 10(b). Doc.
1. 	The 	undersigned, 	therefore, 	struck 	that 	complaint 	and 	afforded
Plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Doc. 4.
To 	ensure 	compliance 	with 	Rule 	8(a) 	and 	Rule 	10(b), 	the
undersigned provided Plaintiffs with detailed instructions regarding
amendment of Plaintiffs’ complaint. Id. Furthermore, the complaint form
utilized by Plaintiffs provides instructions to ensure compliance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, the complaint form states
in relevant part:
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Provide a short and plaint statement of the facts which show
why you are entitled to relief. Describe how each Defendant
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 8 of 20

Page 9 of 20
was involved and what each person did, or did not do, in
support of your claim. Identify when and where the events
took place, and state how each Defendant caused harm or
violated federal law.
IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
State what rights under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States have been violated. Be specific if more than
one claim is asserted, number each claim and relate it to the
facts alleged in Section III.
Doc. 6 at 6, 11. Plaintiffs disregarded these instructions and failed to
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Specifically, Plaintiffs asserted eighteen claims, but they did not
connect the facts alleged in the statement of facts to any cause of action.
For example, in Count II, Plaintiff asserts “All Defendants conspired and
agreed with each other to deprive Plaintiffs of procedural due process to
deprive 	Plaintiffs 	of 	life, 	liberty, 	and 	property 	without 	benefit 	of
Procedural Due Process.” Doc. 6 at 12. Plaintiffs, however, do not identify
specific facts to support this claim.
Similarly, in Count III, Plaintiffs assert “Defendants conspired and
agreed with each other to deprive Plaintiffs of Substantive Due Process.”
Id. Plaintiffs again did not identify which facts—if any—in the statement
of facts section support this claim.
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 9 of 20

Page 10 of 20
Furthermore, 	Plaintiffs’ 	statement 	of 	facts 	is 	replete 	with
conclusory and vague allegations. For example, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants:
conspired an agreed with each other . . . to commit fraud,
theft, 	fraud 	upon 	the 	court, 	conspiracy, 	fraudulent
misrepresentation, 	fraudulent 	inducement, 	fraudulent
conversion, 	false 	pretenses, 	forgery, 	scheme 	to 	defraud,
organized fraud, Medicare and Medicaid fraud, breach of
contract, 	breach 	of 	fiduciary 	duties, 	malpractice, 	treason
against 	the 	constitution 	and 	other 	acts 	of 	intentional
misconduct.
conspired 	and 	agreed 	with 	the 	other 	defendants 	to
fraudulently eradicate, eliminate, or terminate Plaintiff Otis
Evan’s status, standing, capacity and authority as a personal
representative and Plaintiffs Gloria Evans Mickens and Doris
Enzor’ 	status, 	standing, 	capacity, 	and 	authority 	as
beneficiaries without benefit of due process, equal protection,
redress, freedom of speech and representation.
conspired and agreed with each other and with the other
defendants to use the fraudulent POWER OF ATTORNEY BI
RELEASE-SINGLE 	PERSON 	AGREEMENT 	AND
SETTLEMENT 	STATEMENT 	to 	fraudulent 	extricate
themselves and all of the other defendants from liability,
responsibility and accountability for their crimes and torts
including murder/manslaughter and wrongful death of Bobby
Evans.
Id. at 8–9. Plaintiffs, however, do not identify facts that would indicate
Defendants are liable under any of Plaintiffs’ multiple theories.
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 10 of 20

Page 11 of 20
Plaintiffs’ 	amended 	complaint, 	therefore, 	is 	an 	impermissible
“shotgun pleading.” Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353,
1359 n.9 (11th Cir. 1997) (noting that a complaint is a shotgun pleading
when the “reader of the complaint must speculate as to which factual
allegations pertain to which count”); see Est. of Bass v. Regions Bank,
Inc., 947 F.3d 1352, 1356 n.5 (11th Cir. 2020); Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323
(noting that one form of shotgun pleading is one that asserts “multiple
claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the
defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions.”).
Because Plaintiffs’ amended complaint does not comply with Rule
8(a) and Rule 10(b), and because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the
undersigned’s order to amend their complaint to comply with these Rules,
the 	District 	Court 	should 	strike 	Plaintiffs’ 	amended 	complaint 	and
dismiss this civil action against the four Defendants who have moved for
dismissal and all remaining Defendants.
B. 	Plaintiffs Failed to Comply with Rule 9(b)
In addition to their failure to comply with Rule 8(a) and Rule 10(b),
Plaintiffs also failed to comply with Rule 9(b).
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 11 of 20

Page 12 of 20
Plaintiffs 	repeatedly 	state 	that 	all 	remaining 	Defendants
committed fraud, conspired to commit fraud, and acted fraudulently. Doc.
6 at 7–12. As to claims that “sound in fraud,” Rule 9(b) requires a
complaint to state with particularity the circumstances that constitute
fraud. Otto Candies, LLC v. Citigroup, Inc., 137 F.4th 1158, 1178 (11th
Cir. 2025); Omnipol, A.S. v. Multinational Defense Servs., LLC, 32 F.4th
1298, 1307 (11th Cir. 2022). “Under Rule 9(b), claims of fraud must be
plead with particularity, which means identifying the who, what, when,
where, and how of the fraud alleged.” Omnipol, A.S., 32 F.4th at 1307
(citing Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230, 1237 (11th Cir. 2008)).
A plaintiff satisfies the requirements of Rule 9(b) when he states:
(1) 	the 	precise 	fraudulent 	statement(s) 	or omission(s) and the
document in which they were made, if any;
(2) 	the time and place of each such statement(s) or omission(s);
(3) 	the 	person 	responsible 	for 	making 	(or, 	in 	the 	case 	of 	an
omission, not making) the same;
(4) 	the content of such statement(s), or, in the case of an omission
or omissions, what should have been stated;
(5) 	the manner in which the statement(s) or omission(s) misled the
plaintiff; and
(6) 	what the defendants obtained as a consequence of the
fraud.
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 12 of 20

Page 13 of 20
Otto Candies, LLC, 137 F.4th at 1178; Omnipol, A.S., 32 F.4th at 1307;
Crawford’s Auto Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 945 F.3d
1150, 1159 (11th Cir. 2019).
When 	a plaintiff alleges the 	commission 	of 	fraud by 	multiple
defendants, the plaintiff must allege these facts “with respect to each
defendant’s participation in the fraud.” Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp.,
605 F.3d 1283, 1291 (11th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added). Thus, under Rule
9(b), the “essential allegation and circumstance of fraudulent conduct
cannot be alleged” in a “conclusory fashion.” United States ex rel. Clausen
v. Lab’y Corp. of Am., 290 F.3d 1301, 1313 (11th Cir. 2002). Also, as noted
above, Rule 9(b)’s enhanced pleading standard applies to any claim that
“sounds in fraud,” regardless of the label a plaintiff attaches to the claim.
Pop v. Lulifama.com LLC, 145 F.4th 1285, 1293 (11th Cir. 2025).
Plaintiffs allege that all the Defendants committed fraud, acted
fraudulently, and participated in a conspiracy to commit fraud. Doc. 6 at
7–11. Plaintiffs, however, have utterly failed to comply with the pleading
requirements of Rule 9(b). For this reason, too, to the extent that
Plaintiffs assert claims that sound in fraud, Plaintiffs have failed to state
a claim against all of the remaining Defendants.
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 13 of 20

Page 14 of 20
C. 	Plaintiffs Failed to State a Claim Under Sections 1981, 1983,
and 1985
In addition to the deficiencies noted above, the District Court
should grant the respective motions to dismiss of the four Defendants
who move for dismissal because Plaintiffs have failed to state plausible
claims under sections 1981, 1983, and 1985.
1. 	Failure to State a Claim under Section 1981
To state a claim under section 1981, a plaintiff must allege:
(1) 	the 	defendant 	intentionally 	discriminated 	against 	the
plaintiff on the basis of the plaintiff’s race; and
(2) 	the discrimination concerned one or more of the activities
enumerated in section 1981.
Gen. Bldg. Contractors Ass’n v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 391 (1982);
Watts v. Jogger’s Run Property Owner’s Ass’n, Inc., 133 F.4th 1032, 1044
(11th Cir. 2025); Ziyadat v. Diamondrock Hospitality Co., 3 F.4th 1291,
1296 (11th Cir. 2021); Moore v. Grady Mem’l Hosp. Corp., 834 F.3d 1168,
1171–72 (11th Cir. 2016); Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d
1250, 1270 (11th Cir. 2004).
With respect to the first element, “in order to avoid dismissal, a
plaintiff’s complaint must provide enough factual matter (taken as true)
to suggest intentional . . . discrimination.” Castillo v. Allegro Resort
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 14 of 20

Page 15 of 20
Mktg., 603 F. App’x 913, 917 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Davis v. Coca-Cola
Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 974 (11th Cir. 2008)); see Rutstein v.
Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 211 F.3d 1228, 1235 (11th Cir. 2000).
Here, 	Plaintiffs 	rely 	on 	a 	conclusory 	allegation 	that 	some
Defendants discriminated against them. For example, Plaintiffs allege:
Defendants Courts and judges . . . conspired and agreed with
the other defendants to impose a fraudulent POWER OF
ATTORNEY BI RELEASE-SINGLE PERSON AGREEMENT
AND 	SETTLEMENT 	STATEMENT 	to 	conduct 	without
jurisdiction 	a 	fake, 	frivolous, 	false, 	fraudulent, 	vexatious
PROBATE 	PROCEEDING 	TO 	RAILROAD, 	DEMEAN,
EMBARRASS, 	INTIMIDATE 	AND 	STIGMATIZE
PLAINTIFFS and to deprive Plaintiffs of life, liberty, and
property without benefit of due process, equal protection,
redress, freedom of speech and representation, based on race.
Defendants Courts and judges . . . , based on race, without
jurisdiction conspired and agreed with the other defendants
to fraudulently, intentionally and negligently presumed and
assumed Plaintiffs as ABUSIVE PRO SE LITIGANTS.
Doc. 6 at 9. These wholly conclusory allegations do not include any
allegation that the four Defendants who move to dismiss intentionally
discriminated against Plaintiffs based on the Plaintiffs’ race. Plaintiffs,
therefore, have failed to state a claim under § 1981 upon which relief can
be granted.
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 15 of 20

Page 16 of 20
2. 	Failure to State a Claim under Section 1983
“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation
of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and
must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting
under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “[T]he
under-color-of-state-law element of § 1983 excludes from its reach merely
private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.” Am. Mfrs.
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50 (1999) (internal quotations
omitted).
Plaintiffs do not allege any facts which indicate that the four
Defendants 	were 	acting 	under 	color 	of 	state 	law. 	Alleging 	that
Defendants are attorneys is insufficient. A private attorney representing
a client in a civil matter generally is not acting under color of state law.
Huls v. Llabana, 437 F. App’x 830, 832 (11th Cir. 2011); Cobb v. Ga.
Power Co., 757 F.2d 1248, 1251 (11th Cir. 1985) (“[O]ne who has obtained
a state court order or judgment is not engaged in state action merely
because 	[he] 	used 	the 	state 	court 	legal 	process.”). 	Only 	in 	rare
circumstances may a private party be viewed as a state actor for § 1983
purposes:
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 16 of 20

Page 17 of 20
[T]o hold that private parties . . . are State actors, th[e] court
must conclude that one of the following three conditions is
met: 	(1) 	the 	State 	has 	coerced 	or 	at 	least 	significantly
encouraged the action alleged to violate the Constitution
(State compulsion test); (2) the private parties performed a
public 	function 	that 	was 	traditionally 	the 	exclusive
prerogative of the State (public function test); or (3) the State
had so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence
with the private parties that it was a joint participant in the
enterprise (nexus/joint action test).
Rayburn ex rel. Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F.3d 1341, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001)
(internal quotations omitted). But Plaintiffs do not allege facts consistent
with 	these 	three 	theories 	of 	state 	action. 	True, 	Plaintiffs 	allege 	a
“conspiracy” that include state actors, this allegation is a conclusory one
devoid of supporting facts. Thus, with respect to the four Defendants who
move for dismissal, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under § 1983.
3. 	Failure to State a Claim under Section 1985
To state a claim under section 1985(3), a plaintiff must allege:
(1) 	the defendant formed or joined a conspiracy;
(2) 	the purpose of the conspiracy was to deprive a protected
person or class the equal protection of the laws, or equal
privileges and immunities under the law;
(3) 	a conspirator committed an act to further the conspiracy; and
(4) 	as a result of the conspiracy, the plaintiff suffered injury to
either his person or his property, or was deprived of a right or
privilege of a citizen of the United States.
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 17 of 20

Page 18 of 20
Jiminez v. Wellstar Health Sys., 596 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2010);
Lucero v. Operation Rescue of Birmingham, 954 F.2d 624, 627–28 (11th
Cir. 1992).
Plaintiffs’ amended complaint does not include facts sufficient to
allege these elements. Instead, Plaintiffs rely on mere conclusions. “Mere
labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do, and a plaintiff cannot rely on naked assertions
devoid of further factual enhancement.” Franklin v. Curry, 738 F.3d
1246, 1251 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and alteration
omitted). Because Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts in support of this
claim, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under § 1985 against the four
Defendants who move for dismissal.
D. 	Plaintiffs Failed to State a Claim Under Title VII
Plaintiffs also attempt to assert a claim against the four Defendants
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII 	prohibits
employment discrimination based on a plaintiff’s race, color, and religion,
among other characteristics. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). To state a claim
under Title VII, a plaintiff must allege:
(1) 	the plaintiff is a member of a protected class;
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 18 of 20

Page 19 of 20
(2) 	the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action;
(3) 	due to intentional discrimination.
Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1246 (11th Cir. 2015).
Plaintiffs fail to allege any of these elements with respect to the four
Defendants who move for dismissal. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim under Title VII.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	STRIKE Plaintiffs’ amended complaint;
2. 	GRANT Scott & Wallace LLP, Robert Scott, and J. Clint
Wallace’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 26.
3. 	GRANT Jamie A. Coleman’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 55.
4. 	DISMISS this civil action against all remaining Defendants
and close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida on November 25, 2025.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 19 of 20

Page 20 of 20
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. §
636(b); 	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. 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.
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 81 Filed 11/25/25 Page 20 of 20