DOWLING v. KOMITEE

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
ALYSSA DOWLING,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 1:26-cv-118-AW-HTC
ERIC KOMITEE,
Defendant.
____________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Alyssa Dowling, proceeding pro se and seeking to proceed in forma
pauperis, initiated this action by filing a one-page document titled “Plaintiff
demands a trial by Court,” which in its entirety states as follows:
Claim: Defendant displayed discrimination.
Fact: ERIC KOMITEE failed to show due respect.
Prayer for Relief: WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests the Court to grant relief
that is just and proper. 	Plaintiff requests a chance to amend the Complaint
before dismissal.
Doc. 1.
After 	reviewing 	the 	complaint 	and 	Dowling’s 	litigation 	history, 	the
undersigned recommends this case be DISMISSED without prejudice as malicious.
Specifically, the Court takes judicial notice that Dowling has filed the exact same
complaint against the same Defendant in at least nine (9) other district courts
throughout the country. 	See, e.g., W.D. Ky. Case No. 1:26-cv-89-JHM (complaint
Case 1:26-cv-00118-AW-HTC Document 4 Filed 05/20/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
Case No. 1:26-cv-118-AW-HTC
docketed May 18, 2026); D.N.H. Case No. 1:26-cv-391-JL/AJ (same); W.D. Wis.
Case No. 3:26-cv-463-WMC (same).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),1 the Court must dismiss an action that is
frivolous or malicious. The filing of a duplicative complaint is considered “an 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) (affirming
dismissal of complaint as malicious when complaint contained claims duplicative of
claims plaintiff had already asserted in two other pending civil actions).
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
2. 	The clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 20 th day of May, 2026.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 By moving to proceed in forma pauperis, Dowling 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.
2 Dismissal of this case is also appropriate because Dowling’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-00118-AW-HTC Document 4 Filed 05/20/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
Case No. 1:26-cv-118-AW-HTC
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-00118-AW-HTC Document 4 Filed 05/20/26 Page 3 of 3