Rocks-Macqueen v. Democratic National Committee et al
| Michael Rocks-Macqueen |
| Democratic National Committee, Central Intelligence Agency, Brian Colon, Judge Vidalia Chavez, Judge Isra Elliot, Judge Krissa M. Lanham, Judge John J. Tuchi, Judge Steven Logan and Other Federal and State Clerks |
| 8:2025cv02593 |
| September 25, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Natalie Hirt Adams |
| Kathryn Kimball Mizelle |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 8, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 23 NOTICE of Local Rule 1.11(e), which provides that, unless an order states another time, a seal under Rule 1.11 expires ninety days after a case is closed and all appeals are exhausted. To prevent the content of a sealed item from appearing on the docket after the seal expires, a party or interested non-party must move for relief before the seal expires. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (AM) |
| Filing 22 JUDGMENT is entered and this action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 12/8/2025. (AM) |
Filing 21
ENDORSED ORDER dismissing action without prejudice because the earlier 18 Order striking the Complaint as a shotgun pleading has now become a final order. See Auto. Alignment & Body Serv., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 953 F.3d 707, 719-22 (11th Cir. 2020) ("Hertz [Corp. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 16 F.3d 1126 (11th Cir. 1994)] establishes that an order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend within a specified time becomes a final judgment if the time allowed for amendment expires without the plaintiff seeking an extension. And when the order becomes a final judgment, the district court loses 'all its prejudgment powers to grant any more extensions' of time to amend the complaint." (citations omitted)). The Clerk is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT, which shall read "This action is dismissed without prejudice," TERMINATE any pending motions and deadlines, and to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 12/4/2025. (MLR)
|
|
Filing 19
ENDORSED ORDER: Plaintiff shall comply with the Magistrate Judge's 9 #15 Orders and file proof of service no later than December 5, 2025. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 11/14/2025. (MLR)
|
|
Filing 18
ENDORSED ORDER: Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's #17 Second Amended Complaint constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1324 (11th Cir. 2015). Specifically, all five counts improperly fail to separate into different counts each alleged violation, listing multiple statutory, constitutional, or common law causes of action for each count. See id. at 1322-23 ("The third type of shotgun pleading is one that commits the sin of not separating into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief."). Accordingly, the Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED, and the Plaintiff is granted leave to amend their complaint no later than November 26, 2025. If the Plaintiff fails to amend the complaint or submits another shotgun pleading, this action will be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 11/14/2025.
|
| Filing 17 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT: Intelligence Overreach and Political Slavery against Central Intelligence Agency, Vidalia Chavez, Brian Colon, Democratic National Committee, Isra Elliot, Krissa M. Lanham, Steven Logan, Other Federal and State Clerks, John J. Tuchi with Jury Demand. Terminating Scott S. Harris (Clerk of Supreme Court, Individual, Official Capacity) filed by Michael Rocks-Macqueen. Related document: #1 Complaint, filed by Michael Rocks-Macqueen.(AW) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Procedural Obstruction & Clarification of Service under rule 4 by Michael Rocks-Macqueen re #15 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (AW) |
|
Filing 15
ORDER re #12 Objection to a Magistrate Judge Making Dispositive Rulings and Motion to Recognize Completed Service. While I agree with Plaintiff that a magistrate judge cannot make a dispositive ruling in this action, I disagree that orders calling attention to, and directing Plaintiff to comply with, the rules of service of process are dispositive. I also deny the motion to the extent it requests the Court find FedEx mailings to constitute proper service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Natalie Hirt Adams on 10/23/2025. (CJF)
|
|
Filing 14
ENDORSED ORDER: Upon review, the Court DENIES pro se plaintiff Rocks-Macqueen's #11 Motion for Corrective Action. Rocks-Macqueen complains that he does not receive notices of filing via e-mail. Under the court's Administrative Procedures for Electronic Filing, "[t]he filing of a document in CM/ECF automatically generates a notice of electronic filing (NEF), which is an email confirmation of the filing that is sent to each E-filer of record in the case." (emphasis added). The court 6 previously denied Rocks-Macqueen's #2 Motion Requesting E-Filing in Pacer. Thus, because Rocks-Macqueen is not an e-filer (see Doc. 6), Rocks-Macqueen does not receive the NEF. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 10/21/2025.
|
|
Filing 13
ENDORSED ORDER: Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's #10 Amended Complaint constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1324 (11th Cir. 2015). Specifically, the complaint fails to include a single count for each alleged violation of law. See id. at 1322-23 ("The third type of shotgun pleading is one that commits the sin of not separating into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief."). Further, many of the counts do not state a cause of action, but rather broad categories of alleged wrongdoing. For example, the complaint lists, "Count IV: Related Narrative Sources.... 2. FOIA SUPPRESSION AND OBSTRUCTION." Amended Complaint at 35-36. Under this header, plaintiff lists several defendants, several vague "Violation Type[s]" such as "Conspiracy to Conceal Torture and Poisoning," and a variety of constitutional and statutory provisions. See id. The complaint also fails to clarify which defendants are responsible for which claims. See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323 (describing as a shotgun pleading a complaint that "assert[s] multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts."). Accordingly, the plaintiff's #10 Amended Complaint is DISMISSED, and the plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint not later than November 10, 2025. If the plaintiff fails to amend the complaint, this action will be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 10/21/2025.
|
|
Filing 12
MOTION to recognize completed service and objection to unathorized order by magistrate judge by Michael Rocks-Macqueen. (LSS)
|
| Filing 11 MOTION for corrective action and notice of clerical error by Michael Rocks-Macqueen. (LSS) |
| Filing 10 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants with Jury Demand. filed by Michael Rocks-Macqueen. Related document: #1 Complaint, filed by Michael Rocks-Macqueen. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-O)(AW) |
|
Filing 9
ENDORSED ORDER. Plaintiff files a #8 Certificate of Service, alleging he has served Defendants by sending them FedEx packages. Mailing the Complaint alone, does not effect service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Within 30 days, Plaintiff shall serve each Defendant through the methods established in Rule 4 (which outlines the procedures for service on different types of defendants). Should any Defendants fail to timely respond, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A), Plaintiff must timely move for Clerk's default, see Local Rule 1.10(b). Plaintiff's failure to properly serve Defendants within 30 days, or to timely move for Clerk's default, may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Natalie Hirt Adams on 10/9/2025. (CJF)
|
| Filing 8 PROOF of service by Central Intelligence Agency, Vidalia Chavez, Brian Colon, Democratic National Committee, Isra Elliot, Scott S. Harris, Krissa M. Lanham, Steven Logan, John J. Tuchi (LSS) |
|
Filing 6
ENDORSED ORDER: The Court denies pro se plaintiff Michael Rocks-Macqueen's #2 Motion Requesting E-Filing in Pacer. The Court declines to grant an exception to the general rule that pro se litigants must file paper documents with the Court because plaintiff Rocks-Macqueen has failed to "demonstrate[] that an exemption is necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote access to information." Ogilvie v. Millsaps, No. 8:15-cv-2477-T-36JSS, 2015 WL 6688343, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2015). The Court notes that any member of the public can access electronic records of the federal courts by registering online with PACER, and pro se litigants may file paper documents by mail. In the light of the dismissal of the complaint, see (Doc. 5), the Court also denies Rocks-Macqueen's #2 Motion Requesting Submission via USB Drive as moot. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 9/29/2025. (SJR)
|
|
Filing 5
ENDORSED ORDER: Upon review, the Court finds this complaint constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1324 (11th Cir. 2015). First, Count V improperly "incorporates and adopts by reference the allegations in" the prior counts leading to a situation where Count V contains irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions. See id. at 1321 ("The most common type [of shotgun pleading]--by a long shot--is a complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint."). Second, all counts improperly fail to separate into different counts each alleged violation of the Constitution or a statute. See id. at 1322-23 ("The third type of shotgun pleading is one that commits the sin of not separating into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief."). Finally, the Complaint "assert[s] multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions." See id. at 1323. Accordingly, the plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED, and the plaintiff is granted leave to amend his Complaint no later than October 13, 2025. If the plaintiff fails to amend the Complaint, this action will be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 9/29/2025. (SJR)
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Order Referring Case to U.S. Magistrate Judge for IDEAL Program. See attached Order for important deadlines and information about the IDEAL Program. (CDR) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Filing Addendum M by Michael Rocks-Macqueen (Attachments: #1 Cover Page, #2 Supporting Document 1, #3 Supporting Document 2, #4 Supporting Document 3, #5 Supporting Document 4, #6 Supporting Document 5, #7 Supporting Document 6, #8 Supporting Document 7)(EGP) |
| Filing 7 SUMMONS issued as to Central Intelligence Agency, Vidalia Chavez, Brian Colon, Democratic National Committee, Isra Elliot, Scott S. Harris, Krissa M. Lanham, Steven Logan, John J. Tuchi, and Office of General Counsel. (LSS) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to File Electronically and Submit Supplementary to Addendum M for Addendum W via USB Drive by Michael Rocks-Macqueen. (EGP) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Central Intelligence Agency, Vidalia Chavez, Brian Colon, Democratic National Committee, Isra Elliot, Scott S. Harris, Krissa M. Lanham, Steven Logan, Other Federal and State Clerks, John J. Tuchi with Jury Demand Filing fee $405, receipt number TPA73018 filed by Michael Rocks-Macqueen. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit A, #4 Exhibit B, #5 Exhibit C, #6 Exhibit D, #7 Exhibit E, #8 Exhibit F, #9 Exhibit G, #10 Exhibit H, #11 Exhibit I, #12 Exhibit J, #13 Exhibit kk, #14 Exhibit oo, #15 Addenda Table of Contents, #16 Addendum A, #17 Addendum B, #18 Addendum C, #19 Addendum D1-D27, #20 Addendum D Doc 16, #21 Addendum H, #22 Addendum M)(EGP) |
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.
