Konieczko et al v. Orange County, FL et al
| Lawrence W. Konieczko and Laurie F. Konieczko |
| Orange County, FL, Orange County Govt., Orange County, Orange County Govt., Orlando, FL, Carlos Mendoza, Paul Byron, Daniel Irick, Special Magistrate Yvette Rodriguez Brown, Director Doe, Deborah Arthurs, Adam Farrell, Megan Marshall, Daniel Ortiz, Jon Martin, Tracy Greene, Tax Collector Scott Randolph, CE Doe, Chase Bank Employee Doe and Doe 1-50 |
| 6:2025cv02105 |
| November 3, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Nathan W Hill |
| Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 6, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 24
ENDORSED ORDER denying #14 Verified Motion to Stay. The Motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g). Signed by Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe on 4/6/2026. (TAH)
|
|
Filing 23
ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot #13 Motion to Disqualify Judge Julie S. Sneed. Judge Sneed is no longer assigned to this case. Signed by Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe on 4/6/2026. (TAH)
|
| Filing 22 NOTICE to Deputy Clerk: Objection of Documents Being Filed Under Seal by Laurie F. Konieczko, Lawrence W. Konieczko. (WLB) |
|
Filing 21
Certification of No Illegal Third-Party Litigation Funding re #20 Standing Order, and Objections to the Mishandling of Emergency Motions and Aiding and Abetting of Evil and Dangerous Criminals by District Judges by Laurie F. Konieczko, Lawrence W. Konieczko (Attachments: #1 Attachment, #2 Exhibit 2) (WLB)
|
|
Filing 20
STANDING ORDER REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION FUNDING. Signed by Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe on 3/10/2026. (RMF)
|
|
Filing 19
ENDORSED ORDER denying #18 Motion to Disqualify Judge/Motion to Vacate as legally insufficient. Signed by Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe on 2/19/2026. (TAH)
|
| Filing 18 MOTION to Disqualify/Recuse Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, and MOTION to Immediately Vacate Wrongfully Issued Order re 17 Order/Notice to Counsel and Parties, and to Immediately Remove her and have her Proceed no Further in this Action, by Laurie F. Konieczko, Lawrence W. Konieczko. (Chambers Notified) (WLB) Modified on 2/17/2026 to edit docket text. (WLB). |
|
Filing 17
NOTICE TO COUNSEL AND PARTIES: The Middle District of Florida's revised Local Rules became effective November 1, 2025, and can be found on the Court's public website https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/local-rules. For a just and efficient resolution of this case, the parties are DIRECTED to read and comply with the Middle District of Florida's Local Rules. See Local Rule 1.01(a). Failure to comply with ANY Local Rules or Court Orders may result in the imposition of sanctions including, but not limited to, the dismissal of this action or entry of default without further notice. Signed by Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe on 2/13/2026. (RMF)
|
| Filing 16 Case Reassigned to Judge Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe. New case number: 6:25-cv-2105-AGM-NWH. Judge Julie S. Sneed no longer assigned to the case. (RPB) |
|
Filing 15
ORDER. The undersigned recuses herself from this case, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to reassign this case pursuant to its normal procedures. Signed by Judge Julie S. Sneed on 2/6/2026. (DM)
|
| Filing 14 Verified MOTION to Stay Case by Laurie F. Konieczko, Lawrence W. Konieczko. (WLB) |
| Filing 13 Verified MOTION to Disqualify/Recuse Judge Julie S. Sneed by Laurie F. Konieczko, Lawrence W. Konieczko. (WLB) |
|
Filing 12
ENDORSED ORDER denying Plaintiffs' motions to vacate the court's orders denying Plaintiffs' motion for recusal, (Dkts. 7), and dismissing Plaintiff's initial complaint as a shotgun pleading, (Dkt. 8). (Dkts. #10, #11.) Plaintiffs move to vacate the court's orders under Rule 60. (See Dkts. #10, #11.) Rule 60(b) "applies to final judgments, final orders, and final proceedings." Hooker v. McDonough, No. 8:18-CV-2000-CEH-JSS, 2021 WL 2881507, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2021). Orders that deny a motion to disqualify or that dismiss a complaint without prejudice are not final. See United States v. Coble, No. 18-10572-AA, 2018 WL 2276694, at *1 (11th Cir. Apr. 26, 2018); Briehler v. City of Miami, 926 F.2d 1001, 1002 (11th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, Rule 54(b) governs Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Noshirvan v. Couture, No. 2:23-CV-1218-JES-KCD, 2025 WL 2697825, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2025). Under Rule 54(b), the court exercises considerable discretion in deciding whether to revisit interlocutory decisions. Id. In this case, reconsideration is unwarranted. It appears Plaintiffs believe that the court should revisit its prior rulings because the undersigned was obliged to recuse herself upon receiving Plaintiffs' motion, and that, because the undersigned did not do so, the court's subsequent orders are fraudulent. (See Dkt. #11 at 2.) As the court previously explained, recusal is the exception, not the rule. See Laird v. Tatum, 409 U.S. 824, 837 (1972) ("[A] federal judge has a duty to sit where not disqualified which is equally as strong as the duty to not sit where disqualified."). Plaintiffs have not carried their heavy burden to show that recusal is warranted here. (See Dkt. 7.) Accordingly, whether the court analyzes Plaintiffs' motions under Rule 54(b) or Rule 60(b), the result is the same, as Plaintiffs have provided no reason for the court to revisit its decisions. See Booker v. Dugger, 825 F.2d 281, 283 (11th Cir. 1987) (explaining that when a party moves to vacate an order that it believes was procured by fraud, under Rule 60, the party must "establish [the purported fraud] by clear and convincing evidence"). Further, Plaintiffs appear to misunderstand the order dismissing their complaint. That order did not dismiss this case, as Plaintiffs were allowed to file an amended complaint. (See Dkt. 8.) Although the time to do so has now passed, (see id.), the court will grant Plaintiffs an extension. Accordingly, on or before January 23, 2026, Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint that corrects the pleading deficiencies outlined in the court's order dismissing Plaintiffs' initial complaint, (id.), and that complies fully with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court's Local Rules. Signed by Judge Julie S. Sneed on 12/31/2025. (DM)
|
| Filing 11 MOTION Pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for Relief from Order/ Vacate 7 Endorsed Order by Laurie F. Konieczko, Lawrence W. Konieczko. (WLB) |
| Filing 10 MOTION Pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for Relief from Order/ Vacate 8 Endorsed Order, and Reinstate Case by Laurie F. Konieczko, Lawrence W. Konieczko. (WLB) Modified on 12/17/2025 to edit docket text. (WLB). |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of a related action per Local Rule 1.07(c) by Laurie F. Konieczko, Lawrence W. Konieczko. Related case(s): Yes (MSN) |
|
Filing 8
ENDORSED ORDER. "Although [the court] construe[s] pro se pleadings liberally, pro se litigants still must comply with procedural rules." Smith v. Miami-Dade County, 621 F. App'x 955, 962 (11th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, Plaintiff's pro se complaint, (see Dkt. #1)--which raises an array of constitutional, civil rights, and tort claims against a multitude of Defendants--is DISMISSED without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. The Eleventh Circuit has identified four categories of shotgun pleadings, among which are complaints that fail to separate each cause of action into a separate count, that are "replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action," and that "assert[] multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying" which defendant is responsible for the alleged acts or omissions. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). The complaint implicates each of these, as Plaintiffs ultimately fail to identify the facts supporting each cause of action and the Defendants against whom the allegations are made. (See Dkt. #1.) As a result, Defendants and the court are left to speculate as to how Defendants allegedly injured Plaintiffs. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323 (observing that the "unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun pleadings is that they fail... to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests"). Because the complaint is a shotgun pleading, it must be dismissed. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint, correcting the deficiencies identified in this order, on or before December 9, 2025. Signed by Judge Julie S. Sneed on 11/18/2025. (DM)
|
|
Filing 7
ENDORSED ORDER denying Plaintiffs' motion for recusal. (Dkt. #6.) Plaintiffs ask that the undersigned be recused because the Initial Case Order (Dkt. #4) advises Plaintiffs that all "filing requirements and deadlines... will be strictly enforced." (Dkt. #6 at 2 (quoting Dkt. #4 at 4).) According to Plaintiffs, this admonition violates their constitutional rights and thus warrants recusal. (Dkt. #6 at 2.) "Ordinarily, a judge's rulings in the same or a related case may not serve as the basis for a recusal motion. The judge's bias must be personal and extrajudicial; it must derive from something other than that which the judge learned by participating in the case." McWhorter v. City of Birmingham, 906 F.2d 674, 678 (11th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs have identified no basis for recusal beyond their dissatisfaction with an order that is intended to facilitate the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this action. Therefore, recusal is unwarranted. Signed by Judge Julie S. Sneed on 11/18/2025. (DM)
|
| Filing 6 MOTION for Recusal by Laurie F. Konieczko, Lawrence W. Konieczko. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit (LJC) Modified on 11/17/2025 as to docket text (LJC). |
| Filing 5 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT under Rule 7.1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 3.03 by Laurie F. Konieczko, Lawrence W. Konieczko. (LJC) Modified on 11/17/2025 as to filing date (LJC). |
|
Filing 4
INITIAL ORDER re: Case Management and Deadlines. Signed by Judge Julie S. Sneed on 11/6/2025. (GNB)
|
| Filing 3 Case Reassigned to Judge Julie S. Sneed. New case number: 6:25-cv-2105-JSS-NWH. Judge Carlos E. Mendoza no longer assigned to the case. (RPB) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER- It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Undersigned RECUSES himself from this case. The Clerk is DIRECTED to randomly reassign this case to another District Judge. Signed by Judge Carlos E. Mendoza on 11/5/2025. (MEH)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants with Jury Demand Filing fee $405, receipt number ORL116793 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(ARL) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
