REYNOLDS v. PATTERSON et al

Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
DAUNTE M. REYNOLDS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-343-MCR-MJF
DUSTAIN PATTERSON, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned has screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Because Plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous, the District
Court 	should 	dismiss 	this 	civil 	action 	pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§
1915A(b)(1).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff 	commenced 	this 	civil 	rights 	action 	against 	three
Defendants, 	including 	a 	state 	judge 	and 	two 	classification 	officers
employed by the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC). Doc. 1. In his
“statement of claims,” Plaintiff alleges that he has been held in prison
“with a toon spoon draw police tracker sound monitor” and held “hostage
by the judge with a court document.” Id. at 7.
Case 5:25-cv-00343-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
Plaintiff further alleges that Judge Dustain Patterson1 of the Bay
County Court issued a “paid document” to Plaintiff for Plaintiff to have a
“toonspoon drawin” device placed in Plaintiff’s head. Accordingly to
Plaintiff, this device can “read [Plaintiff’s] life history and information.”
Id. at 5–6. The “toonspoon drawin” device also allows correctional officers
and other inmates to “see things out [of Plaintiff’s] eyes when [he] look[s]
[straight] and when [he] closes [his] eyes [he] can see them” engaging in
sexual misconduct. Id. at 13. On or about September 12, 2025, Plaintiff
was supposed to “go to court and have the drawin taken out [of his] head,”
but that did not occur. Id. at 6.
Plaintiff also claims that the Jackson Correctional Institution staff
and a Florida judge placed a “tracter police skinner monitor” in Plaintiff’s
head. Doc. 1 at 6. This device allows people outside the prison facility to
tamper with Plaintiff’s bank accounts and family members. Id.
In the “relief requested” section of the complaint form, Plaintiff does
not request a specific form of relief. Rather, he states that he is “missing
1 	There 	is 	no 	judge 	named 	“Dustain 	Patterson” 	employed 	by 	the
Fourteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Bay County, Florida. This fictitious
name may be an amalgamation of Judge Dustin Stephenson and Judge
Christopher N. Patterson.
Case 5:25-cv-00343-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
long amount from the bay county court by all attorney jugde’s. from out
my street banking profile suntrust.” Doc. 1 at 7 (errors in original).
STANDARD
The 	District 	Court 	is required to 	review Plaintiff’s 	complaint,
identify cognizable claims and dismiss the complaint, or any portion
thereof, if the complaint “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b).
Determining whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be
granted is governed by the standard set forth in Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Mitchell v.
Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997). The District Court must
accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint and
must consider all reasonable inferences derived from those facts in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d
1480, 1483 (11th Cir. 1994). To survive dismissal, “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) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Case 5:25-cv-00343-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
D ISCUSSION
A claim is factually frivolous when it lacks any arguable basis in
fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 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”).
Here, Plaintiff’s allegations are based on delusional and fantastic
scenarios. For example, Plaintiff alleges:
• 	A state judge ordered a “toon spoon drawin” device to be
placed in Plaintiff’s head to read Plaintiff’s life history and
information.
• 	This device allows inmates and prison officials to see things
through Plaintiff’s eyes when Plaintiff looks straight ahead.
• 	This device also allows Plaintiff to see the inmates and prison
officials engage in sexual misconduct when Plaintiff closes his
eyes.
• 	Thus devices contain a government profile, and the device
came “off the Judge’s computer.”
• 	The Jackson Correctional Institution staff and the state judge
also placed a “blue tude connaction program system that is AI
sound tracter police skinner monitor” in Plaintiff’s head.
Case 5:25-cv-00343-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
• 	This 	device 	that 	allows 	people 	outside 	of 	the 	prison 	to
interfere with Plaintiff’s bank profile, family tree, and family
members.
• 	Plaintiff was supposed to go to court to have these two devices
removed from his head.
Because Plaintiff’s complaint is based on delusional and fantastic
scenarios, Plaintiff’s complaint is factually frivolous. The District Court,
therefore, should dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. See Gary v. U.S. Gov’t,
540 F. App’x 916, 916 (11th Cir. 2013).
CONCLUSION
Because this civil action is frivolous, the undersigned respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1).
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 13th day of January 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
Case 5:25-cv-00343-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/13/26 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
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 5:25-cv-00343-MCR-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/13/26 Page 6 of 6