Williams v Duval County Magistrate Recommend

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 15-CIV-60205-ZLOCH/HUNT

ANTHONY WILLIAMS, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. DUVAL COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE, et al, Defendants. _______________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before this Court on a sua sponte review of the record. The

Honorable William J. Zloch referred to the undersigned all non-dispositive, pretrial

matters for disposition and all dispositive, pretrial matters for a Report and

Recommendation. See ECF No. 4; see 28 U.S.C. 636(b); see also S.D. Fla. L.R.,

Mag. R. 1. The undersigned has carefully reviewed the pleadings, the record in this

case, the applicable law and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Based thereon,

it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiffs Complaint be DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs, Anthony Williams a/k/a Private Attorney General Anthony Williams,

United States Office of the Private Attorney General, Florida Common Law Grand Jury,

Wayne Tull-Bey, Foreman; People of Florida (collectively, Plaintiffs), commenced this

action seeking injunctive and monetary relief, as well as a plethora of other forms of civil

Case 0:15-cv-60205-WJZ Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2015 Page 1 of 7

2

and criminal relief, on February 3, 2015.1 See Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs assert that

Defendants, the Duval County Recorders Office, Ronnie Fussell, County Clerk, Mark E.,

Bailiff; Officer M.S. Richardson, Officer M. Lim, Officer J.C. Farrar, Officer Rivera

Marrer, Officer Jerry Thomas, Supervisor Chris (last name unknown), Supervisor Jody

Phillips, John Doe Clerks 1-100; Jane Doe Clerks 1-100, Doe Municipalities 1-100, Doe

Governmental Units 1-100, and Doe Instrumentalities 1-100 (collectively, Defendants),

in concert with the American Bar Association and the Florida Bar Association, have

denied the people of Florida and the United States basic constitutional and civil rights by

preventing the recording of lawful documents in the county recorders [sic] office. See

id. at 3. The alleged fraud is a result of running a fraudulent unlawful recording

scheme.2 Id. at 2.

The factual circumstances regarding Plaintiffs allegations arose on January 9

and January 23, 2015. See id. at 6, 24. On those dates, Candia Williams-El, Highly

Favored Shekinah El and Taquan Gullet-El were denied recording an Affidavit properly

notarized. Id. These alleged events occurred at the Duval County courthouse.3 A

1 The court also notes that Plaintiff Anthony Williams is a serial filer. See Case Nos. 14-60357-CIV-WJZ (case dismissed); 14-62939-CIV-JEM; 15-20111-CIV-MGC (case dismissed); 15-60030-CIV-BB (case dismissed); 15-60039-CIV-BB; 15-60153-CIV-JIC (case dismissed); 15-60115-CIV-ZLOCH. 2 Plaintiffs also cite numerous federal statutes including 42 U.S.C. 1983 but fail to present any required elements to establish a claim under the cited statutory provisions. 3 The undersigned also notes that not only did all the alleged events occur in Jacksonville but all the named Defendants are alleged to be residents of Jacksonville, Florida. See 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b). As such, venue lies in the Northern District of Florida. Venue is therefore improper in the Southern District of Florida, however, transfer of this action is not required given that the Complaint fails to state a viable cause of action. See Nalls v. Coleman Low Federal Institution, 440 F. Appx 704 (11th Cir. 2011).


3

supervisor by the name of Chris returned the fee tendered and refused recording the

affidavit without giving any reason for the refusal. Id. Plaintiff Williams, a professed

private attorney general, asked Chris to provide a reason why the affidavit(s) were

rejected.4 See id. at 7, 32. Chris explained that the affidavit was rejected because it

did not meet the requirements of Florida Statutes Section 28.222. Plaintiffs

acknowledge that the clerk stated he would record the affidavit administratively and it

would be placed in the miscellaneous section and charged an $8 fee. Id. at 24.

Plaintiffs rejected this option. Id. The undersigned is able to glean from the documents

attached to the Complaint that Plaintiffs, at least on January 9, 2015, attempted to

record The Common Law Grand Jury Affidavit on the county record. Id. Plaintiffs

also refer to this document as the Common Law Grand jury Notice. Id. at 34. The

undersigned notes that a document titled Affidavit of Florida Common Law Grand Jury

is attached to Plaintiffs Complaint and, although not clear from the Complaint, appears

to be the document that Plaintiffs tried to record. Id. at 48-49.

II. Legal Standard

A pleading in a civil action must contain a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While a complaint

does not need detailed factual allegations, it must provide more than labels and

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009) (explaining that Rule 8(a)(2)s pleading standard demands more than

an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation). Nor can a complaint

4 It is unclear whether the same affidavit or a different affidavit was filed on the dates indicated above.


4

rest on naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (alteration in original)).

A court, as a general rule, must accept the plaintiffs allegations as true and

evaluate all plausible inferences derived from those facts in favor of the plaintiff. See

Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012); Miccosukee Tribe of

Indians of Fla. v. S. Everglades Restoration Alliance, 304 F.3d 1076, 1084 (11th Cir.

2002). While the Court is required to accept all of the allegations contained in the

complaint and exhibits attached to the pleadings as true, this tenet is inapplicable to

legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Thaeter v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriffs Office,

449 F.3d 1342, 1352 (11th Cir. 2006) (When considering a motion to dismiss . . . the

court limits its consideration to the pleadings and all exhibits attached thereto.) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

III. Discussion

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment, a public apology, an injunction against

Defendants, a public reprimand to deter future misconduct, and damages in the amount

of 3 million dollars for each claim of a civil rights violation, abuses of power, emotional

distress, mental anguish, and public embarrassment alleged. Id. at 14-15. Even under

the relaxed pleading standard afforded to pro se litigants, Plaintiffs Complaint fails to

state a cause of action. See Abele v. Tolbert, 130 F. Appx 342, 343 (11th Cir. 2005);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6).

First, the undersigned notes that Plaintiffs legal conclusion that the Clerk is

required to record ALL documents is legally incorrect. Id. at 37. Florida Statutes

Section 28.222 (1) plainly states that [t]he clerk of the circuit court shall be the recorder


5

of all instruments that he or she may be required or authorized by law to record in the

county where he or she is clerk. Section 28.222 (3) specifically enumerates the

documents that the clerk shall record. The clerks authority is entirely statutory, and his

official action, to be binding upon others, must be in conformity with the statutes.

Overholser v. Overstreet, 383 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The clerk is merely a

ministerial officer of the court. Corbin v. Slaughter, 324 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

Thus, the statutory direction that only those instruments required or authorized by law

may be recorded constitutes a prohibition against recording other types of instruments.

Op. Atty Gen. Fla. 90-69 (1990). Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the statutory

language of Florida Statutes Section 28.222, the undersigned finds that Plaintiffs

Affidavit of Florida Common Law Grand Jury is not an enumerated document that the

clerk is authorized to record.

The remaining allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint cite a host of legal authorities

and principles that have no possible bearing on any claim attempted to be asserted

herein and certainly fail to assert any colorable claims for relief. Plaintiffs claims are

factually meritless and legally frivolous and fail to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. The 49 page document is a rambling collection of quotes interspersed with

declarations regarding the failings of Americas lawyers, judges and court personnel.

For example, Plaintiffs declare that, [t]he members of the American Bar Association

and its affiliate Florida Bar Associations together have succeeded in corrupting our

government for their financial profit by convincing the clerks office that the only people

who know law are Bar attorneys; [a]ll these public servants who took a de facto oath

ultimately made themselves foreigners and foreign agents who are not US Citizens;


6

and [t]his oath establishes them to be loyal to the government of England and operate

a conspiracy to control the American people with their statutes, codes, rules and

regulations and the Supreme Court Rules neither of which are law. Id. at 11. Finally,

the other remedies Plaintiffs seek, for example, removal from office and criminal

prosecution, are not within the scope of this Courts authority nor does this Court find

these requests meritorious.

RECOMMENDATION

Because Plaintiffs Complaint wholly fails to state a cause of action, the

undersigned recommends that Plaintiffs Complaint be DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.5

The parties have fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of this Report and

Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with the Honorable

William J. Zloch, United States District Judge. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) (providing

procedure for review of magistrate judge report and recommendation). Failure to timely

file objections shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by Judge Zloch of any

issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties from challenging, on appeal, the

factual findings accepted or adopted by this Court, except upon grounds of plain error or

manifest injustice. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 14553 (1985) (citing United

States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 94950 (6th Cir. 1981)) (holding that party waives

appellate review of magistrate judges factual findings that were not objected to within

period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)); see also Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d

5 The Court may dismiss an action with prejudice if a more carefully drafted complaint could not state a claim. Ziemba v. Cascade Intl, Inc., 256 F.3d 1194, 1213 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs claims here are legally baseless, and no amount of re-drafting can cure that fundamental deficiency.


7

1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that under current Eleventh Circuit rule: [T]he

failure to object limits the scope of our appellate review to plain error review of the

magistrate judges factual findings[; however,] failure to object to the magistrate judges

legal conclusions does not preclude the party from challenging those conclusions on

appeal.).

DONE AND SUBMITTED at Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 23th day of March

2015.

_____________________________________ PATRICK M. HUNT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Honorable William J. Zloch All Counsel of Record Anthony Williams, Pro Se 5722 Flamingo Road, #228 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33330 United States Office of the Private Attorney General, Pro Se 6230 3rd Street, Suite #5 Washington, DC 20011 Florida Common Law Grand Jury, Pro Se P.O. Box 41052 Jacksonville, FL Wayne Tull-Bey, Pro Se P.O. Box 41052 Jacksonville, FL


RECOMMENDATION

Documents

Williams v Duval County Magistrate Recommend