VELASCO
v.
UNKNOWN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The District Court dismissed Plaintiff Brandi Velasco's complaint as frivolous, finding it to be largely incomprehensible, lacking a named defendant, and replete with sovereign citizen legal theories that have been consistently rejected by courts.
The complaint is dismissed as frivolous without leave to amend because it is patently frivolous and any amendment would be futile. The court warned that continued filing of frivolous cases may result in sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c).
[1] A complaint that is largely incomprehensible and fails to name a defendant may be dismissed.
[2] Arguments and legal theories espoused by adherents of the sovereign citizen movement have been consistently rejected as frivolous.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the legal-sounding but meaningless verbiage commonly used by adherents to the so-called sovereign citizen movement”
Describes the nature of plaintiff's complaint and the court's characterization of sovereign citizen filings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Brandi Velasco filed a complaint on May 5, 2025, attempting to bring what she described as a 'bankruptcy and probate equity court action.' T…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Frivolous Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court sua sponte on Plaintiff Brandi Velasco's complaint, filed May 5, 2025. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff seems to be attempting to bring some sort of action described as a “bankruptcy and probate equity court action." However, the complaint is largely incomprehensible, fails to name any particular defendant, and is otherwise replete with "the legal-sounding but meaningless verbiage commonly used by adherents to the so-called sovereign citizen movement." See Sealey v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., No. 2:17cv785-MHT-SMD, 2019 WL 1434065, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 21, 2019). The arguments and legal theories espoused by sovereign citizens have been consistently rejected as “utterly frivolous, patently ludicrous, and a waste of . . . the court's time, which is being paid by hardearned tax dollars." See Young v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 3:16cv298/RV/EMT, 2018 WL 1251920, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2018) (citing Roach v. Arrisi, No. 8:15-cv- 2547-T-33AEP, 2016 WL 8943290, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2016)). This case is
Page 1 of 2
patently frivolous and due to be dismissed without leave to amend, as any amendment would be futile.
Plaintiff is warned that if she continues to file frivolous cases here or in any other courts, she may be subject to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c), including monetary sanctions or injunctive relief directing the Clerk to not accept future filings by Plaintiff without first obtaining prior leave of the Court.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
1) This case is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
2) The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and thereafter close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, on this 12th day of May, 2025.
TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2