Brown Allen v. State of Florida et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-CV-61332-SMITH/VALLE
LUTRICIA LUSHAN BROWN ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
DEBORAH CARPENTER-TOYE,
RAVEN HALLOWAY, and
JOHN DOE,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff’s Demand for Order of
Preliminary Injunction to Halt all State of Florida Court Proceedings in Case 25000388MM10A
and Protect Constitutional Rights under 28 U.S.C. 1651, 28 U.S.C. 2283 and 28 U.S.C. 1361
(ECF No. 27) (the “Motion”). United States District Judge Rodney Smith has referred the case to
the undersigned for a ruling on all non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all
dispositive matters. (ECF No. 23).
Having considered the Motion, the record in this case, the Supplemental and Amended
Civil Rights Complaint (ECF No. 28), the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, the
undersigned respectfully recommends that the Motion be DENIED, and the case be DISMISSED
for the reasons stated below.
Case 0:25-cv-61332-RS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/17/2025 Page 1 of 7

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
The 	undersigned 	previously 	dismissed 	Plaintiff’s 	initial 	Complaint 	for 	procedural
deficiencies, including failure to state a claim, improper fictitious pleading against John/Jane Does,
judicial and prosecutorial immunity, and as a shotgun pleading. 	See (ECF No. 19) (the “initial
Dismissal Order”). That initial Dismissal Order is incorporated by reference and attached as an
Exhibit for ease of reference. The instant Motion followed. In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks, among
other 	things, 	a 	preliminary 	injunction 	to 	stop 	the 	State 	Court 	proceedings 	in 	case
25000388MM10A. 	See generally (ECF No. 27). 	Plaintiff has also filed a Supplemental and
Amended Civil Rights Complaint, labeling it as being “in addition to and in support of the Original
Federal Complaint.” (ECF No. 28).
II. 	PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
A. 	General Principles
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, “the court may issue a preliminary
injunction only on notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). Here, however, because the
Court dismissed the initial Complaint, Defendants have not been served or appeared in this case.
Accordingly, a preliminary injunction without notice to Defendants is procedurally improper.
Moreover, although Rule 65(b) allows for the issuance of a temporary restraining order without
notice to Defendants under certain circumstances, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any verified
facts warranting such relief.
Nevertheless, the Court evaluates the merits of the Motion. To obtain a preliminary
injunction, the moving party must demonstrate that: (i) there is a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits of its claims; (ii) it will suffer irreparable injury if injunctive relief is not granted;
(iii) the threatened injury to the moving party outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the
Case 0:25-cv-61332-RS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/17/2025 Page 2 of 7

3
non-movant; and (iv) granting the injunction would serve the public interest. 	Schiavo ex. rel
Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005). A plaintiff must establish all four
elements. Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d 1244, 1248 (11th Cir. 2016); see also Levi
Strauss & Co. v. Sunrise Int’l. Trading Inc., 51 F.3d 982, 985 (11th Cir. 1995).
A preliminary injunction is “meant to keep the status quo for a merits decision.” 	Vital
Pharms., Inc. v. Alfieri, 23 F.4th 1282, 1290 (11th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted); see Animaccord
Ltd. v. Individuals, P’ships & Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified on Schedule “A,” No. 22-CV-
60956-KMM, 2023 WL 5625593, at *6 (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2023), report and recommendation
adopted, 2023 WL 5765888 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2023). 	At the preliminary injunctive stage, the
Court may “rely on affidavits and hearsay materials which would not be admissible evidence for
a permanent injunction, if the evidence is appropriate given the character and objectives of the
injunctive proceeding.” 	Levi Strauss & Co., 51 F.3d at 985 (citation omitted). 	Lastly, a
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that should not be granted unless the
movant clearly satisfies the “burden of persuasion” as to all four elements. 	Siegel v. LePore,
234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000). Each factor is discussed below.
B. 	Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Upon a liberal reading of Plaintiff’s pro se Motion, Plaintiff seeks an injunction to stop all
further proceedings in the State Court case 25000388MM10A. See generally (ECF No. 27). As
explained in the initial Dismissal Order, Plaintiff’s initial Complaint revolves around an alleged
traffic stop that occurred on November 25, 2024, and subsequent criminal State Court proceedings.
See (ECF No. 19 at 2). In the instant Motion, Plaintiff alleges that the State Court proceedings
relating to the traffic stop violate her constitutional rights by, among other things, including entry
Case 0:25-cv-61332-RS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/17/2025 Page 3 of 7

4
of a forced plea without consent, fabricating docket entries, suppressing jurisdictional challenges,
and violating state and federal constitutional oaths of office. See (ECF No. 27 at 1).
In cursory fashion, Plaintiff references several statutes as support for the relief requested.
See, e.g., (ECF No. 27 at 2) (referencing “28 U.S.C. § 1331(federal question jurisdiction);
28 U.S.C.§ 1343(a)(3) (civil rights jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus to compel
performance of federal duties); 28 U.S.C. § 2201-202 (declaratory and further relief); Ex parte
Young, 	209 	U.S. 	123 	(1908) 	(permitting 	injunctions 	against 	state 	officers 	enforcing
unconstitutional schemes); Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1Cranch) 137(1803) (a law repugnant to
the Constitution is void); Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887) unlawful alternation of charging
instruments voids proceedings); Mooney v Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935); Napue v. Illinois,
360 U.S. 264 (1959) (prohibiting convictions based on false or misleading evidence); Johnson v.
Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) (waiver of constitutional rights must be 	knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (no valid plea without an on the record waiver
of constitutional rights); Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1 (1966) (no inference of waiver of trial
rights); 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law); 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (destruction,
alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations and official proceedings); 28 U.S.C.
§ 535(b)(duty to refer evidence of federal offenses to appropriate authorities)).
Despite a liberal reading of Plaintiff’s pro se allegations, however, she has failed to
establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of any potential claim.
C. 	Irreparable Harm
Next, to demonstrate irreparable harm, a movant must show “that the injury cannot be
undone through monetary remedies.” Anago Franchising, Inc. v. CHMI, Inc., No. 09-CV-60713,
2009 WL 5176548, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2009) (citation omitted). 	The irreparable injury
Case 0:25-cv-61332-RS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/17/2025 Page 4 of 7

5
claimed “must be neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent.” Id. (quoting Siegel,
234 F.3d at 1176). Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that immediate and irreparable injury
will result to Plaintiff from the State Court case. Indeed, Plaintiff’s Supplemental and Amended
Complaint seeks millions of dollars in monetary damages, which undercuts her claim of irreparable
injury. See (ECF No. 28 at 3-6).
D. 	Potential Harm
To grant injunctive relief, the Court must weigh the potential harm to both Plaintiff and
Defendants if the injunction is granted. 	Here, although Plaintiff alleges emotional, mental and
physical distress, see e.g., (ECF Nos. 27 at 1, 8; 27-1 at 33-39) (various impact statements), halting
a State Court proceeding could disrupt the State Court judicial system of justice. 	Accordingly,
Plaintiff has failed to establish that the potential harm to her outweighs the harm to Defendants.
E. 	Public Interest
Lastly, the Court considers whether granting an injunction would serve the public interest.
Schiavo, 403 F.3d at 1226. 	Here, the public interest weighs against a preliminary injunction to
stop a State Court from proceeding with matters properly brought before it. Accordingly, Plaintiff
has failed to establish the requisite elements for the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary
injunction and the Court should deny the Motion.
III. 	SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
The 	undersigned 	previously 	dismissed 	Plaintiff’s 	initial 	Complaint 	for 	procedural
deficiencies, including failure to state a claim, improper fictitious pleading against John/Jane Does,
judicial and prosecutorial immunity, and for being a shotgun pleading. See (ECF No. 19). The
dismissal was without prejudice, allowing Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies by filing an amended
complaint by November 21, 2205. Id. at 10. Although Plaintiff filed a Supplemental and Amended
Case 0:25-cv-61332-RS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/17/2025 Page 5 of 7

6
Civil Rights Complaint, her filing was untimely. 	See (ECF No. 28) (filed on 11/26/2025).
Accordingly, the Supplemental and Amended Civil Rights Complaint should be dismissed as
untimely.
Further, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to cure the deficiencies of the initial
Complaint. Compare (ECF No. 28), with (ECF No. 1). Rather, Plaintiff simply adds arguments
regarding the alleged events within the State Court proceedings, names additional Defendants Jose
Parra and Broward County Clerk of Courts, and lists the damages she allegedly seeks (totaling
millions of dollars). See generally (ECF No. 28). Even upon a liberal reading, the Supplemental
and Amended Civil Rights Complaint fails to state a claim and remains a shot gun pleading. See
(ECF No. 19) (the initial Dismissal Order discussing elements of a claim and type of shotgun
pleadings). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Supplemental and Amended Civil
Rights Complaint be dismissed. Lastly, although it is doubtful that Plaintiff will be able to cure
the deficiencies of her alleged claims, it is left to the discretion of the District Judge whether
dismissal should be with or without prejudice.
IV. 	RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully recommends that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Demand for Order of Preliminary Injunction to Halt all "State of Florida"
Court Proceedings in Case 25000388MM10A and Protect Constitutional Rights Under 28 U.S.C.
1651, 28 U.S.C. 2283 and 28 U.S.C. 1361 (ECF No. 27) be DENIED; and
2. 	Plaintiff’s Supplemental and Amended Civil Rights Complaint (ECF No. 28) be
DISMISSED as untimely and procedurally deficient.
Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation and
any supplemental filing, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above
Case 0:25-cv-61332-RS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/17/2025 Page 6 of 7

7
findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this District. 	28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). 	Failure to timely object waives the right to challenge on
appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained
in this Report and Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2025); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985).
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida on December 17, 2025.
___________________________________
ALICIA O. VALLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: 	U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith
Lutricia Lushan Brown Allen, Pro Se
1040 Park Drive
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33312
[EXHIBIT ON NEXT PAGE]
Case 0:25-cv-61332-RS Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/17/2025 Page 7 of 7