OWENS v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
RANDALL BOAZ OWENS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:26cv804-MW-HTC
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Randall Owens, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an amended
civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 5. However, after reviewing
the amended complaint, the undersigned concludes venue is not proper in the
Pensacola 	Division. 	Furthermore, 	because 	the 	amended 	complaint 	contains
nonsensical allegations and fails to state a claim, a transfer to the correct division
would not serve the interest of justice. Thus, the undersigned recommends this case
be DISMISSED without prejudice.
A civil action may be brought in: (1) “a judicial district in which any defendant
resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located”;
(2) “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the
Case 3:26-cv-00804-MW-HTC Document 8 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
Case No. 3:26cv804-MW-HTC
action is situated”; or (3) “if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be
brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is
subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b). 	In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1406 provides that “[t]he district court of a
district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall
dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or
division in which it could have been brought.” This Court has adopted similar rules
for determining where a case should be filed within the Northern District of Florida.
See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 3.1(B) (“An original case must be filed in a division in which
venue would be proper if the division was a stand-alone district.”).
Here, 	Owens 	sues 	the 	Florida 	Department 	of 	Corrections 	(“FDOC”),
President Donald Trump, and various officials at Northwest Florida Reception
Center (“NWFRC) Annex, including Warden Williams and Colonel Brown. Doc. 5
at 1-3. While Owens is currently housed at Walton Correctional Institution, which
is in the Pensacola Division, the Defendants are not located, and the conduct
complained of is not alleged to have taken place, in the Pensacola Division. Instead,
Owens references events which occurred at NWFRC, which is in Washington
County and falls within the Panama City Division. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 3.1(A)(2).
While the Court would ordinarily transfer a case to the proper division, a
transfer under these circumstances would not serve the interest of justice because
Case 3:26-cv-00804-MW-HTC Document 8 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
Case No. 3:26cv804-MW-HTC
Owens’s amended complaint does not contain specific factual allegations showing
any Defendant violated Owens’s rights under federal law.1 Instead, the amended
complaint consists mostly of nonsensical allegations and requests. For example:
• 	“Approximately in the month of August 2024 my home was ordered to be
taken by an order of illegality with Brandon Bridges and Joanne Bridges as
catalyst of the Synagogue of Satan at NWFLRC Annex, they were puppets of
the SS given fake documents, fake deeds, and forgery upon arriving [in]
Washington, after an illegal sentence, me Mr. Donald J. Trump and whole
cabinet [were] introduced, by violence in there gangland coordination of the
most anti-Semitical people I ever met[.]”
• 	“Other parties such as Aaron Avis, James Riddle, H.M. Weaver, the Seg
offcer – Officer Mrs. Wood … who promotes victimization, and advocates
child molestation and other satanic act(s) of the despicable un-pardonable,
unmanipulatable act(s) of treason by this satanic fraternity.”
• 	Owens has “not yet received justice, but will either by the dissolution of the
corporate unit of the United States or the administration and whole D.O.D.
including the IRS, and Puerto Rico – now gifted to Cuba for Cuba’s
prosperity.”
• 	“I ask the future cabinet(s) officer(s) be vetted by the Jewish synagogue, to
avoid this grave injustice of future children.”
• 	As relief, Owens wants to be “removed” as a citizen of the United States; for
the capital to be moved to Jerusalem; for him to be deported “from prison to
Israel, with money to rebuild Israel”; and the “release of all the Pentagon
officers.” 	Alternatively, Owens suggests he should receive “a personal
payment of all Donald J. Trump’s wealth,” and the demolition of all the
Defendants’ houses, including President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.
1 While the amended complaint suggests Owens may have been sprayed with chemical agents at
NWFRC, he does not allege facts showing when it occurred, who was involved, or whether it was
excessive. See Barr v. Gee, 437 F. App’x 865, 877-78 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of
excessive force claim because assertion that force was “excessive” was conclusory and plaintiff
did not “allege facts permitting a plausible inference that the force [the officers] used was
unreasonable”); Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 401 (11th Cir. 1986) (“[S]ection 1983
requires proof of an affirmative causal connection between the official’s acts or omissions and the
alleged constitutional deprivation.”).
Case 3:26-cv-00804-MW-HTC Document 8 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
Case No. 3:26cv804-MW-HTC
In addition, Owens claims the FDOC failed to honor the pardon that Governor
DeSantis issued him on national television on December 6, 2025.2 Doc. 5 at 4, 8.
While that allegation is dubious, even assuming it is true, challenges to the legality
of Owens’s conviction or confinement cannot be raised in a complaint under § 1983.
See Hutcherson v. Riley, 468 F.3d 750, 754 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[I]f the relief sought
by the inmate would either invalidate his conviction or sentence or change the nature
or duration of his sentence, the inmate’s claim must be raised in a § 2254 habeas
petition, not a § 1983 civil rights action.”).
Based on the foregoing, Owens’s allegations are frivolous and do not support
a viable claim for relief under § 1983. 	See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-
33 (1992) (“[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts
alleged 	are 	‘clearly 	baseless,’ 	a 	category 	encompassing 	allegations 	that 	are
‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional[.]’”) (citations omitted). 	Thus, rather than
transfer this case to the Panama City Division, the undersigned recommends the
amended complaint be dismissed without prejudice.3
2 The FDOC is also immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. See Brown v. Fla. Dep’t
of Revenue Office of Child Support Enforcement, 697 F. App’x 692, 692-93 (11th Cir. 2017) (state
agencies are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment).
3 Owens entered FDOC custody in June 2025 and he was housed at NWFRC from June 2025 to
early in 2026. 	See Doc. 6 at 2; https://pubapps.fdc.myflorida.com/OffenderSearch/Search.aspx.
Thus, a dismissal of this case would not operate as a dismissal with prejudice.
Case 3:26-cv-00804-MW-HTC Document 8 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
Case No. 3:26cv804-MW-HTC
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
1. 	That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice because it was filed in
an improper venue.
2. 	That the clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 25 th day of February, 2026.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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 3:26-cv-00804-MW-HTC Document 8 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 5