Sharp v. Wenski

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 1:25-cv-23021-MARTINEZ/LETT
DARYL SHARP,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS WENSKI,
Archbishop of Miami,
Defendant.
_________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Honorable Jose E. Martinez’s
referral of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP
Motion”), ECF No. 3. See Paperless Order Referring, ECF No. 8. 	Having reviewed
Plaintiff’s IFP Motion, the record, Plaintiff’s prior litigation history, and relevant
legal 	authority, 	advised, 	for 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	herein, 	the 	Undersigned
recommends this matter be dismissed with prejudice.
The Plaintiff, Daryl Sharp, filed the Complaint on July 7, 2025. ECF No. 1. On
the same date, Plaintiff also filed his IFP Motion. Federal law permits litigants to
proceed with an action without the prepayment of fees in certain circumstances.
[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement,
prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal,
or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a
person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets
such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give
security therefor.
Case 1:25-cv-23021-MD Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2025 Page 1 of 4

2
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see also Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306
n.1 (11th Cir. 2004) (“Despite the statute’s use of the phrase ‘prisoner possesses,’ the
affidavit requirement applies to all persons requesting leave to proceed IFP.”).
Section 1915(a) “is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access
to the federal courts.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).
However, 	“[t]he 	right 	of 	access 	to 	the 	courts 	‘is 	neither 	absolute 	nor
unconditional.’” Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1096 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Cofield
v. Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 936 F.2d 512, 516 (11th Cir.1991)). “Frivolous and
vexatious law suits threaten the availability of a well-functioning judiciary to all
litigants. . . Absent monetary cost as a constraint, the sheer volume of frivolous IFP
suits threatens to undermine the availability of the federal courts to the public.”
Miller, 541 F.3d at 1096. Accordingly, “[a] court’s sua sponte dismissals based on
frivolity are provided for, and indeed mandated by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and
1915A(b)(1). . . .” Id. at 1100.
Heeding this mandate, the Honorable Roy K. Altman, on March 31, 2025
“screened [Plaintiff’s] Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and determined that it
was ‘a frivolous shotgun pleading that must be dismissed.’” Screening Order, 1:25-cv-
20379-RKA, ECF No. 5 at 1–2. Only after Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint
by April 4, 2025 in accordance with the Court’s instructions, was his complaint
dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders. See Order
Dismissing Case, 1:25-cv-20379-RKA, ECF No. 9. Plaintiff appealed to the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals, which eventually dismissed the appeal on June 25, 2025,
Case 1:25-cv-23021-MD Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2025 Page 2 of 4

3
for want of prosecution. See Order of Dismissal from USCA, 1:25-cv-20379-RKA, ECF
No. 15.
Dissatisfied with the result in the matter before Judge Altman, on July 7, 2025,
Plaintiff filed a near-identical complaint in this matter. Compare Compl., ECF No. 1,
with Compl., 1:25-cv-20379-RKA, ECF No. 9. In both cases, Plaintiff is seeking
monetary damages in the amount of $500 trillion for alleged misuse and theft of
government funds by “manipulating” or “altering the Bible” and “mass shootings
against children and law enforcement personnel” or “mass shootings to intimidate
the case for moving forward.” This is impermissible and results in dismissal. See
Disability Advocs. & Counseling Grp., Inc. v. Betancourt, 379 F. Supp. 2d 1343, 1351
(S.D. Fla. 2005) (King, J.) (“Running to the Clerk’s office to re-file a case already
dismissed on the merits is impermissible as a means to avoid continuing with the
Judge that previously dismissed the case by amending, or as a means to avoid
appealing that dismissal to the Eleventh Circuit.”). Moreover, because the instant
Complaint suffers the same defects as the original, leave to amend has once been
granted, and any further leave to amend would be futile, dismissal is warranted.
Accordingly, 	it 	is 	hereby 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	the 	Complaint 	be
DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim and amend in accordance
with Judge Altman’s Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court
be DIRECTED to CLOSE the case.
Case 1:25-cv-23021-MD Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2025 Page 3 of 4

4
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida on this 1st day of
December, 2025.
_____________________________________
ENJOLIQUÉ A. LETT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: All Counsel of Record
Case 1:25-cv-23021-MD Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2025 Page 4 of 4