Mendez v. Stoller et al
| Kristen Mendez |
| Jack Stoller and Dawn Hill-Kearse |
| 8:2026cv01448 |
| May 11, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Kathryn Kimball Mizelle |
| Christopher P Tuite |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 5, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 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). (MGB) |
Filing 5
ENDORSED ORDER: A previous order dismissed the complaint without prejudice and provided the plaintiff with leave to amend no later than May 29, 2026. (Doc. 3). The deadline has passed, and the plaintiff neither sought an extension nor filed an amended complaint. As a result, the order dismissing the complaint has "become[] a final judgment." Auto. Alignment & Body Serv., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 953 F.3d 707, 719-720 (11th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, the plaintiff's action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT, which shall read "This case is dismissed without prejudice." The clerk is directed to TERMINATE any pending motions and CLOSE the case. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 6/5/2026. (GTD)
|
|
Filing 3
ENDORSED ORDER: Upon review, the Court finds that the complaint (Doc. #1) constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1324 (11th Cir. 2015). The complaint "is guilty of the venial sin of being replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action." Id. at 1321-22. The complaint consists entirely of three vague and conclusory sentences that are insufficient to provide the defendant with notice of the nature of the claims and the facts upon which they are based. Further, the complaint does not assert any cause of action against the defendants or provide any allegations regarding jurisdiction in this Court. See Jackson v. Bank of America, N.A., 898 F.3d 1348,1358 (11th Cir. 2018) ("The pleading is vague and ambiguous such that [the defendant has] to guess as to... the facts upon which [the plaintiff relies] in support.") (quotation omitted). The complaint also violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) because it does not include the plaintiff's e-mail address and telephone number. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED, and the plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies no later than May 29, 2026. If the plaintiff fails to amend the complaint or submits another shotgun pleading, this action will be dismissed without prejudice without further notice. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 5/15/2026. (GTD)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Kristen Mendez. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope)(AW) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite. Modified on 5/14/2026 (AW). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Kristen Mendez, Jack Stoller filed by Kristen Mendez. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope)(AW) |
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.
