ALEXANDER v. HILL-KEARSE et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
JOSEPH ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 1:26cv25-AW-HTC
DAWN HILL-KEARSE, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Joseph Alexander has filed a complaint (Doc. 1) and motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), which were docketed in this Court on January
23, 2026. 	After reviewing the complaint and Alexander’s litigation history, the
undersigned recommends this case be DISMISSED without prejudice as malicious,
as it is duplicative of cases Alexander has filed in district courts throughout the
country.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the Court must dismiss an action that is
frivolous or malicious.1 The filing of a duplicative complaint is considered “an
1 By moving to proceed in forma pauperis, Alexander has invoked the screening provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Whitted v. Sarasota Mem’l Hosp., 2024 WL 4392784, at *1 n.1 (M.D.
Fla. Oct. 3, 2024) (construing a pro se litigant’s “failure to pay the filing fee as a request to proceed
in forma pauperis” when screening and dismissing his complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)). 	However, because this case should be dismissed sua sponte, the motion to
proceed in forma pauperis will be denied as moot by separate order.
Case 1:26-cv-00025-AW-HTC Document 4 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
Case No. 1:26cv25-AW-HTC
abuse of the judicial process” and the complaint “is properly dismissed without
prejudice as malicious[.]” Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021).
In this case, Alexander’s complaint: (1) names Dawn Hill-Kearse and Sergio
Jimenez as Defendants; (2) includes only one allegation—“Upon information and
belief, Defendants conspired together and intentionally delayed the calendar of
motions, in violation of due process”; (3) states “[t]he basis for this court’s
jurisdiction is federal law”; and (4) “demands compensation of $500,000.” Doc. 1.
A review of Alexander’s litigation history on PACER reveals he has filed the exact
same 	complaint 	against 	the 	same 	Defendants 	in 	over 	twenty 	district 	courts
throughout the country. See e.g., M.D. La. Case No. 3:26cv95 (complaint docketed
Jan. 22, 2026); D. Mass. Case No. 1:26cv10273 (complaint docketed Jan. 22, 2026);
D.N.M. Case No. 1:26cv142 (complaint docketed Jan. 23, 2026); W.D. Wisc. Case
No. 3:26cv57 (complaint docketed Jan. 23, 2026).
Because this case is duplicative of cases Alexander filed in other federal
courts, including cases that were opened before this one, this case should be
dismissed without prejudice as malicious.2 See Daker, 999 F.3d at 1310 (affirming
dismissal of complaint as malicious when complaint contained claims duplicative of
claims plaintiff had already asserted in two other pending civil actions).
2 Dismissal of this case is also appropriate because Alexander’s sole allegation is conclusory and
fails to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and the complaint fails to establish venue is proper in
this district.
Case 1:26-cv-00025-AW-HTC Document 4 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
Case No. 1:26cv25-AW-HTC
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
1. 	That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice as malicious under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
2. 	That the clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 27 th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any different
deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only
and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon
all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.
Case 1:26-cv-00025-AW-HTC Document 4 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 3