EVANS MICKENS et al v. BAKER et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
GLORIA EVANS MICKENS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 4:25-cv-102-AW-MJF
CIRCUIT COURT SECOND JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING THIRD REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Three pro se Plaintiffs sued three state judges, two courts, and numerous
others. The judicial defendants moved to dismiss. ECF Nos. 16, 17, 21. The court
earlier adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted those
motions. ECF No. 34. Now at issue is the magistrate judge’s third report and
recommendation, which concludes the complaint is a shotgun pleading and that the
court should dismiss all claims. ECF No. 81. I have considered that report and
recommendation, and I have considered de novo the issues raised in Plaintiffs’
objections. ECF No. 84. I agree Plaintiffs’ complaint is a shotgun pleading. And
because Plaintiffs’ initial complaint (ECF No. 1) was also a shotgun pleading, and
because Plaintiffs already had an opportunity to correct the problems and failed to
do so, I will now dismiss the case in its entirety. This moots the other pending
motions and obviates any need to address the second report and recommendation
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 85 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 3

2
(ECF No. 75), which correctly explains (among other things) that the Florida
Department of Financial Services is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The magistrate judge correctly explains why the First Amended Complaint is
a shotgun pleading. I adopt that portion of the report and recommendation and
incorporate it into this order. I do not adopt the discussion about Rule 9(b)
deficiencies, because the Rule 9(b) issue becomes moot with the dismissal based on
the shotgun-pleading issue.
Plaintiffs’ objections, like their complaint, are hard to follow. They contend
the magistrate judge committed fraud on the court. The gist of their overall claim is
that Plaintiffs’ former attorneys, some state judges, the Florida Department of
Financial Services, and others all conspired to deprive them of their rights. Now,
they argue that the magistrate judge conspired too. They claim he “has conspired
and agreed without jurisdiction to permit Defendants . . . to fraudulently dismiss
Plaintiffs’ Complaint based on fraudulent grounds to obtain fraudulent Orders form
the District Court judge.” ECF No. 84 at 3. There is no merit to this objection or any
other. All objections are now overruled.
The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “Plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed
with prejudice as a shotgun pleading based on Rules 8 and 10.” The clerk will then
close the file. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 85 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 3

3
SO ORDERED on December 15, 2025.
s/ Allen Winsor
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00102-AW-MJF Document 85 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 3