ADAMS v. JIMENEZ

Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
JESSIE ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 1:26-cv-23-AW-MJF
SERGIO JIMENEZ,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Jessie Adams has filed a three-sentence complaint against
Defendant Sergio Jimenez in 40 federal district courts, including the
United 	States 	District 	Court 	for 	the 	Northern 	District 	of 	Florida.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the undersigned has screened Adams’s
complaint. Because Adams’s complaint fails to state a plausible claim for
relief, and the complaint is malicious and an abuse of the judicial process,
the District Court should dismiss this civil action.
BACKGROUND
On January 22, 2026, Adams filed a complaint that consists of only
three sentences:
Case 1:26-cv-00023-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 7

Page 2 of 7
1. Upon 	information 	and 	belief, 	Defendant 	had 	ex 	parte
communication with certain individuals.
2. Defendant conspired with others in violation of due process.
3. The Basis for federal court jurisdiction is federal law.
Doc. 1.
Because Adams’s complaint bore similar allegations to another
complaint recently filed by a prolific filer,1 the undersigned reviewed
court records available on the Federal Judiciary’s Public Access to Court
Electronic Records (PACER) database. In the past four days, Adams has
filed the exact same complaint in 40 federal district courts, including
nearly every district court in the Eleventh Circuit. Adams v. Jimnenez,
No. 2:26-cv-38-MHT-CWB, ECF No. 1, Complaint (M.D. Ala.) (filed Jan.
20, 2026); Adams v. Jiminez, 2:26-cv-96-JHE, ECF No. 1, Complaint
(N.D. Ala.) (filed Jan. 21, 2026); Adams v. Jiminez, No. 8:26-cv-68-TPB-
SPF, ECF No. 1, Complaint (M.D. Fla.) (filed Jan. 20, 2026); Adams v.
Jiminez, No. 1:26-cv-20388-EGT, ECF No. 1, Complaint (S.D. Fla.) (filed
1 On January 9, 2026, Plaintiff Lucas Williams filed a three-sentence
complaint against Sergio Jiminez alleging that Jiminez conspired with
others in violation of due process. Williams v. Jiminez, No. 4:26-cv-4-RH-
MJF (N.D. Fla.). Williams also filed his complaint in more than 40 federal
district courts.
Case 1:26-cv-00023-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 7

Page 3 of 7
Jan. 21, 2026); 	Adams v. Jiminez, No. 5:26-cv-24-MTT, ECF No. 1,
Complaint (M.D. Ga.) (filed Jan. 21, 2026); Adams v. Jiminez, 1:26-cv-
366-MLB, ECF No. 1, Complaint (N.D. Ga.) (filed Jan. 20, 2026); Adams
v. Jiminez, No. 1:26-cv-17-JRH-BKE, ECF No. 1, Complaint (S.D. Ga.)
(filed Jan. 21, 2026).
D ISCUSSION
A. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915 Screening Standard
Adams is proceeding in forma pauperis. Therefore, the District
Court is required to review Adams’s complaint and dismiss any claim
that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
B. 	Adams Fails to State a Plausible Claim For Relief
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). 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).
Case 1:26-cv-00023-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 7

Page 4 of 7
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)). While the federal pleading standard does not
require “detailed factual allegations,” it does require more than an
“unadorned, 	the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 	accusation.” 	Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
As noted above, Adams’s allegations consists of three sentences,
which are nothing more than “the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me”
accusations. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 1–3. Adams provides no factual enhancement to
support her conclusion that Defendant conspired in violation of due
process. Adams’s vague allegations do not include basic facts such as
what happened, when it happened, where it happened, and how Adams
suffered any injury because of Defendant’s actions or omissions. Adams’s
Case 1:26-cv-00023-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 7

Page 5 of 7
complaint plainly violates Rule 8’s pleading standard. For this reason
alone, the District Court should dismiss this civil action.
C. 	Adams Has Abused the Judicial Process
There is also a second, independent reason to dismiss this civil
action: this civil action is malicious.
“[A] plaintiff’s duplicative complaint is an abuse of the judicial
process and is properly dismissed” as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021); accord McWilliams
v. Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997); Pittman v. Moore, 980
F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th
Cir. 1988); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981). In
just four days, Adams has filed the same deficient complaint against
Defendant in 40 federal district courts. Adams’s complaint does not
include any facts that suggest the Northern District of Florida is an
appropriate venue for this civil action. Adams’s return address is an
address in California, her complaint is postmarked from “Mid-Island
NY,” and it appears that she is suing the Honorable Sergio Jimenez, a
judge of the Queens County Civil Court. Thus, Adams’s duplicative
filings appear to be intended to harass rather than initiate legitimate
Case 1:26-cv-00023-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 Page 5 of 7

Page 6 of 7
litigation against Defendant. As such, Adams’s conduct is an abuse of the
judicial process, and the District Court should dismiss this civil action
because of its maliciousness, as anther district court already has done.
See Adams v. Jimenez, No. 1:26-cv-24, ECF No. 3, Order Dismissing
Complaint on Initial Screening (D. Wyo.) (filed Jan. 22, 2026) (dismissing
Adams’s complaint because she failed to state a plausible claim for relief
and because she engaged in frivolous or malicious litigation).
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for
failure to state a plausible claim for relief and for maliciousness; and
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida on January 23, 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
Case 1:26-cv-00023-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 Page 6 of 7

Page 7 of 7
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. 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-00023-AW-MJF Document 5 Filed 01/23/26 Page 7 of 7