MENDEZ v. STOLLER et al

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
KRISTEN MENDEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 1:26cv115-RH-MAF
JACK STOLLER,
and DAWN HILL-KEARSE,
Defendants.
_________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On May 14, 2026, the Clerk’s Office docketed a complaint, ECF No.
1, and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, received
from the pro se Plaintiff, whose address as shown on the mailing envelope
was in Kansas City, Missouri. ECF No. 1 at 2. Ruling was deferred on
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion because it was inconsistent and vague.
See ECF No. 4. In addition, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim.
An Order was entered, advising Plaintiff that if she wanted to continue this
case, she must submit a corrected in forma pauperis motion and an
amended complaint on the court forms. 	Id. 	Plaintiff was given until June
Case 1:26-cv-00115-RH-MAF Document 5 Filed 06/18/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
16, 2026, to comply with that Order. 	Id. 	Alternatively, Plaintiff was advised
to file a notice of voluntary dismissal by the same deadline if she agreed
there was no basis to proceed with this case.
Finally, Plaintiff was required to show good cause why this case
should continue in this Court and why she should not be sanctioned. ECF
No. 4. Plaintiff submitted what appears to be the identical complaint in
nearly every federal court in the United States. A review of PACER (the
Public Access to Court Electronic Records website) shows Plaintiff Kristen
Mendez filed 33 cases in federal courts from Alaska to Wisconsin between
May 11 - 14, 2026. Review of case number 1:26cv296-JJM-PAS, filed in
the District of Rhode Island, shows Plaintiff filed the identical complaint
there that she filed here. The same is true for case number 2:26cv366-
RAH-CWB, filed in the Middle District of Alabama.
As of this date, Plaintiff has not responded to that Order, ECF No. 4,
despite the warning that this case would be dismissed if Plaintiff did not
respond. It appears that Plaintiff has been initiating cases for amusement
and not for justice. This case should be dismissed for failure to comply
with a Court order, and because the complaint is frivolous.
Case No. 1:26cv115-RH-MAF
Case 1:26-cv-00115-RH-MAF Document 5 Filed 06/18/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this
case be DISMISSED for failure to comply with a Court Order and because
the complaint, ECF No. 1, is frivolous.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 18, 2026.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other
parties. 	A party may respond to another party’s objections within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). 	Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. 	If a
party 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party 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; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case No. 1:26cv115-RH-MAF
Case 1:26-cv-00115-RH-MAF Document 5 Filed 06/18/26 Page 3 of 3