VAN SCHAICK v. DESANTIS et al

Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
JOSHUA-MICHAEL VAN
SCHAICK,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 4:25-cv-271-RH-MJF
RON DESANTIS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed this civil action against various Florida and federal
officers and agencies seeking “to restrain ultra vires and unconstitutional
trespass 	on 	lands 	held 	under 	United 	States 	patent.” 	Doc. 	1 	at 	1.
Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the “establishment or support of a
federal detention facility” commonly known as “Alligator Alcatraz.” Id.
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of standing. Docs. 23 & 25. Plaintiff
responded in opposition. Doc. 28. Because Plaintiff failed to establish that
he has standing, the District Court should grant the Defendants’ motions
and dismiss this civil action without prejudice.
Case 4:25-cv-00271-RH-MJF Document 38 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 7

Page 2 of 7
BACKGROUND
On 	April 	30, 	1903, 	the 	United States 	government 	transferred
approximately 2,862,280 acres of land within the Everglades to the State
of Florida as part of the Swamp and Overflowed Land Patent, No. 137.
Doc. 3-1 at 5; Hardee v. Horton, 108 So. 189, 191 (Fla. 1925); see Doc. 1 ¶
13. Plaintiff alleges that Florida subsequently placed the land in the
private 	domain, 	but 	Plaintiff 	does 	not 	identify 	to 	whom 	Florida
purportedly conveyed the property. Doc. 1 ¶ 47(d).
On June 23, 2025, the Florida Division of Emergency Management
(“FDEM”) 	took 	control 	of 	the 	Dade-Collier 	Training 	and 	Transition
Airport (“TNT”) in order to construct a “large scale immigration detention
facility.” Doc. 1 ¶ 21; Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. Noem, 796 F. Supp.
3d 1234, 1245 (S.D. Fla. 2025). Plaintiff asserts that this land “lies
squarely within private, patented land.” Doc. 1 ¶¶ 17, 47(d). Plaintiff,
appearing “in rem Suam, Propia Persona Sui Juris Standing-Jus-Soli-
On Soil as a Native Inhabitant of Florida” states that he is “a lawful
successor in interest and a beneficial and equitable title holder of rights
derived under United States Patent No. 137.” Doc. 1 ¶ 6.
Case 4:25-cv-00271-RH-MJF Document 38 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 7

Page 3 of 7
For relief, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from authorizing,
supporting, or constructing a detention facility on the relevant land; an
order directing Defendants to relocate any detention facility; and an
order of ejectment.
STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a party may move
to dismiss a claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) may raise a factual or
facial attack. Kennedy v. Floridian Hotel, Inc., 998 F.3d 1221, 1230 (11th
Cir. 2021) (citing Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1528–29 (11th Cir.
1990)); see Douglas v. United States, 814 F.3d 1268, 1274–75 (11th Cir.
2016). A facial attack “challenges whether a plaintiff ‘has sufficiently
alleged a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, and the allegations in [the]
complaint are taken as true.’” 	Kennedy, 998 F.3d at 1230 (quoting
Lawrence, 919 F.2d at 1529).
DISCUSSION
Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts
may exercise jurisdiction only over “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S.
Const. art. III, § 2; see Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559 (1992).
Case 4:25-cv-00271-RH-MJF Document 38 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 7

Page 4 of 7
That is, jurisdiction requires a justiciable case or controversy within the
meaning of Article III. See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750–51 (1984).
Standing constitutes one component of justiciability and presents a
“threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the
court to entertain the suit.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975);
Wiand v. ATC Brokers Ltd., 96 F.4th 1303, 1311 (11th Cir. 2024). Thus,
“[e]very litigant must possess standing to sue in the United States
courts.” United States v. Johnson, 983 F.2d 216, 218 (11th Cir. 1993).
“[P]laintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim” and “each form
of relief.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 431 (2021).
A plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the three elements of
Article III standing: (1) an injury in fact; (2) a causal connection between
the injury and the alleged misconduct; and (3) a likelihood that the injury
will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560–61;
Maron v. Chief Fin. Officer of Fla., 136 F.4th 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 2025).
At the pleading stage, a plaintiff merely must allege facts that would
support each element of Article III standing. Glynn Env’t Coal., Inc. v.
Sea Island Acquisition, LLC, 26 F.4th 1235, 1240 (11th Cir. 2022).
Case 4:25-cv-00271-RH-MJF Document 38 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 7

Page 5 of 7
The injury-in-fact requirement helps to ensure that a plaintiff has
a “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.” Warth, 422 U.S. at
498 (internal quotation marks omitted). The “injury in fact inquiry serves
to distinguish a person with a direct stake in the outcome of litigation—
even though small—from a person with a mere interest in the problem.”
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures,
412 U.S. 669, 690 n.14 (1973).
“To allege an injury in fact, a plaintiff must allege that he has
suffered 	(1) 	‘an 	invasion 	of 	a 	legally 	protected 	interest’ 	that 	is 	(2)
‘concrete,’ (3) ‘particularized,’ and (4) ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural
or hypothetical.’” Maron, 136 F.4th at 1329 (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 339 (2016)). For an injury to be particularized it
must be “individualized rather than collective.” Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 339.
An injury is concrete when it is “real and not abstract.” Sierra v. City of
Hallandale Beach, Fla., 996 F.3d 1110, 1113 (11th Cir. 2021).
Plaintiff 	has 	not 	alleged 	an 	injury 	in 	fact. 	Although 	Plaintiff
purports to be a “lawful successor in interest and a beneficial equitable
title holder of rights derived” under Patent No. 137, Plaintiff does not
allege sufficient facts to support this legal conclusion. Friends of the
Case 4:25-cv-00271-RH-MJF Document 38 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 7

Page 6 of 7
Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 184 (2000);
Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 979 F.3d 917, 924 (11th Cir. 2020).
For example, Plaintiff does not allege how he came to have a legal or
equitable interest in the 2,862,280 acres relevant to Patent No. 137. Also,
having an “equitable interest” can have various meanings, and Plaintiff’s
allegations do not clarify the nature of his “equitable interest” in the real
property at issue. Plaintiff’s allegations are simply too conclusory to
establish—even at the pleading stage—that Plaintiff suffered an injury
in fact.
As noted above, Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that he
has standing. Morrison v. Allstate Indem. Co., 228 F.3d 1255, 1273 (11th
Cir. 2000). Plaintiff has failed to carry that burden. Accordingly, the
District Court should dismiss this civil action without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	GRANT Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Docs. 23 & 25.
2. 	DISMISS this civil action without prejudice.
Case 4:25-cv-00271-RH-MJF Document 38 Filed 02/03/26 Page 6 of 7

Page 7 of 7
3. 	DIRECT 	the clerk of the court to terminate all pending
motions and close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida on February 3, 2026
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
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); 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 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.
Case 4:25-cv-00271-RH-MJF Document 38 Filed 02/03/26 Page 7 of 7