SULLIVAN v. PACHECO et al

Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
JACK SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 4:26-cv-45-MW-MJF
CARMEN PACHECO and
SERGIO JIMENEZ,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Jack Sullivan has filed a three-sentence complaint against
Defendants Carmen Pacheco and Sergio Jimenez in 21 federal district
courts, including the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Florida. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the undersigned has
screened Sullivan’s complaint. Because Sullivan’s complaint fails to state
a plausible claim for relief, and he has abused the judicial system, the
District Court should dismiss this civil action.
B ACKGROUND
On January 26, 2026, Sullivan filed a complaint that consists of
only three sentences:
Case 4:26-cv-00045-MW-MJF Document 4 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 7

Page 2 of 7
1. 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides that “Every person who, under color of
any statute, ordinance regulation, custom, or usage, of any State
or Territory, or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within
the 	jurisdiction 	thereof 	to 	the 	deprivation 	of 	any 	rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,
shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any
action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission
taken in such officer’s judicial capacity,”
2. Both Defendants have delayed the proceedings, in violation of 42
U.S.C. 1983,
3. The amount in controversy is more than $75,000, the actual
amount is to be decided by the jury.
Doc. 1.
Because Sullivan’s complaint bore similar allegations to two other
complaints recently filed by prolific and abusive filers,1 the undersigned
reviewed court records available on the Federal Judiciary’s Public Access
1 On January 9, 2026, Plaintiff Lucas Williams filed a three-sentence
complaint against Sergio Jiminez alleging that Jiminez conspired with
others in violation of due process. Williams v. Jiminez, No. 4:26-cv-4-RH-
MJF (N.D. Fla.). Williams filed his complaint in more than 40 federal
district courts. Similarly, on January 22, Plaintiff Jessie Adams filed a
three-sentence complaint against Sergio Jiminez alleging that Jiminez
conspired with others in violation of due process. Adams v. Jiminez, No.
1:26-cv-23-AW-MJF (N.D. Fla.). Adams filed her deficient complaint in
40 federal district courts.
Case 4:26-cv-00045-MW-MJF Document 4 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 7

Page 3 of 7
to Court Electronic Records (PACER) database. In the past four days,
Sullivan has filed the exact same complaint in 21 federal district courts,
including several district courts within the Eleventh Circuit. Sullivan v.
Pacheco, No. 2:26-cv-57, ECF No. 1, Complaint (M.D. Ala.) (filed Jan. 26,
2026); Sullivan v. Pacheco, No. 2:26-cv-109, ECF No. 1, Complaint (N.D.
Ala.) (filed Jan. 23, 2026); Sullivan v. Pacheco, No. 6:26-cv-200, ECF No.
1, Complaint (M.D. Fla.) (filed Jan. 26, 2026); Sullivan v. Pacheco, No.
1:26-cv-20462, ECF No. 1, Complaint (S.D. Fla.) (filed Jan. 23, 2026).
D ISCUSSION
A. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915 Screening Standard
Sullivan is proceeding in forma pauperis. Therefore, the District
Court is required to review Sullivan’s complaint and dismiss any claim
that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
B. 	Sullivan Fails to State a Plausible Claim for Relief
A civil complaint filed in federal court 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). Determining whether a complaint states a
Case 4:26-cv-00045-MW-MJF Document 4 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 7

Page 4 of 7
claim upon which relief can be granted is governed by the standard set
forth in Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997).
The District Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual
allegations of the complaint and must consider all reasonable inferences
derived from those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d 1480, 1483 (11th Cir. 1994). To survive
dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). While the federal pleading standard does not
require “detailed factual allegations,” it does require more than an
“unadorned, 	the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 	accusation.” 	Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
As noted above, Sullivan’s allegations consists of three sentences,
which are nothing more than “the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me”
accusations. Doc. 1 ¶¶ 1–3. Sullivan provides no factual enhancement to
support 	his 	conclusions 	that 	Defendant 	violated 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1983.
Sullivan’s vague allegations do not include basic facts such as what
Case 4:26-cv-00045-MW-MJF Document 4 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 7

Page 5 of 7
happened, when it happened, where it happened, and how Sullivan
suffered 	any 	injury 	because 	of 	Defendants’ 	actions 	or 	omissions.
Sullivan’s complaint plainly violates Rule 8’s pleading standard. For this
reason alone, the District Court should dismiss this civil action.
C. 	Sullivan Has Abused the Judicial Process
There is also a second, independent reason to dismiss this civil
action: this civil action is malicious.
“[A] plaintiff’s duplicative complaint is an abuse of the judicial
process and is properly dismissed” as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021); accord McWilliams
v. Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997); Pittman v. Moore, 980
F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th
Cir. 1988); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981). In
just four days, Sullivan has filed the same deficient complaint against
Defendants in 21 federal district courts. Sullivan’s complaint does not
include any facts that suggest the Northern District of Florida is an
appropriate venue for this civil action. Sullivan’s return address is an
address in California, and it appears that he is suing the Honorable
Sergio Jimenez and the Honorable Carmen Pacheco, two New York State
Case 4:26-cv-00045-MW-MJF Document 4 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 7

Page 6 of 7
Judges. Thus, Sullivan’s duplicative filings appear to be intended to
harass rather than initiate legitimate litigation against Defendants. As
such, Sullivan’s conduct is an abuse of the judicial process, and the
District Court should dismiss this civil action.
C ONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for
failure to state a plausible claim for relief and as malicious; and
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida on January 27, 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge 	to 	address 	preliminary 	matters 	and to 	make
recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed R.
Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed findings and
recommendations must be filed within fourteen 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
Case 4:26-cv-00045-MW-MJF Document 4 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 7

Page 7 of 7
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 unobjected-
to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1;
28 U.S.C. § 636. The parties also are advised that if they
dispute the accuracy of any facts taken from judicially-
noticed documents, or if they otherwise wish to be
heard on the propriety of the court taking judicial
notice of those facts, they must raise this issue in an
objection to this report and recommendation.
Case 4:26-cv-00045-MW-MJF Document 4 Filed 01/27/26 Page 7 of 7