BOZEMAN
v.
STIDHAM
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 court held that the plaintiff's complaint was patently frivolous and failed to state a viable cause of action, warranting dismissal with prejudice.
Plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including a judge and state agencies, for $10 million under the Tucker Act, alleging they held his pleadings to a …
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. Plaintiff Greatlen Warren Bozeman sues Jeffrey Stidham [fn 1], the Florida State Bar, the Florida Department of Revenue, the Child Support Agency, and Assistant State Attorney Leslie A. Hoffman for $10 million dollars under the Tucker Act for “holding the Plaintiff's pleadings to a higher standard when attorneys don't have a license." He appears to complain that a prior unidentified state court lawsuit he filed was dismissed based on administrative rules. In addition to substantial monetary damages, Bozeman requests that this Court “revok[e] the judge's bond and license to practice law."
The complaint fails to state any viable cause of action. It is patently frivolous on its face, and any amendment would be futile. As such, this case is dismissed with prejudice, without leave to amend. Plaintiff is warned that if he
continues to file frivolous cases here or in any other courts, he 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.
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 September, 2024.
Jup. Bul
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[fn 1]: Bozeman identifies Mr. Stidham as a judge, but that does not seem to be the case. The Court notes that if Mr. Stidham were a judge, absolute judicial immunity would bar any claims against him for acts in his role as a judge. See, e.g., McCree v. Griffin, No. 19- 14646-A, 2020 WL 2632329 (11th Cir. May 20, 2020); McCullough v. Finley, 907 F. 3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2018); Alba v. Montford, 517 F. 3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2018).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2008)
- McCullough v. Finley, 907 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2018)
- Noriega v. Farr (M.D. Fla. 2024)