CHARMAINE FLOYD
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CONSUMER SERVICE DIVISION OF LICENSING
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 affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny Charmaine Floyd's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the case with prejudice, and designate Floyd as a vexatious litigant subject to restrictions on filing in the Southern District of Florida.
The Court denied Floyd's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed the action with prejudice, designated Floyd as a vexatious litigant, and imposed restrictions on Floyd's future filings in the Southern District of Florida, requiring either payment of filing fees, a sworn affidavit of imminent threat of serious physical injury, representation by counsel, or prior court approval.
[1] A court may deny a motion to proceed in forma pauperis if the case is dismissed with prejudice.
[2] A plaintiff's history of frivolous and harassing litigation can support a designation as a vexatious litigant.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 district judge, who had previously handled many of [the vexatious litigant's] cases, was in the best position to assess [the litigant's] activities and their effect on the Southern District of Florida's resources.”
Establishes the rationale for why the district court is best positioned to designate and restrict a vexatious litigant with a history of multiple cases before it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharmaine Floyd filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in an action against the Florida Department of Agriculture Consumer Service Division of Li…
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 Restricted Filer Status cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 6] (“the R&R”). The R&R recommends that the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“the Motion”) [ECF No. 3] be denied and that the case be dismissed with prejudice. [ECF No. 6 at 12].
The R&R also details Plaintiffs history of frivolous, harassing litigation and recommends that the Court designate Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and enjoin Plaintiff from “filing any further motion, pleading, or other paper in this action, or from filing another lawsuit in this District without prior approval from the Court or unless it is accompanied by payment of a filing fee, a sworn oath indicating imminent danger of serious personal injury, or representation by an attorney admitted to the bar of this Court." [Id.]. Based on Plaintiff's well-documented history of abusive litigation before this Court and others in this district, [see R&R at 7–11], the Court finds it necessary to restrict Plaintiffs filing privileges. See Watkins, 820 F. App'x at 947 (finding that “the district judge, who had previously handled many of [the vexatious litigant's] cases, was in the best position to assess [the litigant's] activities and their effect on the Southern District of Florida's resources.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff shall be added to the list of restricted filers in the Southern District of Florida.
This case was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid pursuant to Administrative Order 2025-11. Thereafter, this case was randomly reassigned to the undersigned. [See ECF No. 5]. Plaintiff did not file an objection within the time permitted.
Having reviewed the Motion, the record, the Report and Recommendation, the governing law and finding no error, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 6] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and fully incorporated herein.
2. The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 3] is DENIED.
3. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is instructed to CLOSE this case. All existing deadlines are TERMINATED, and any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
4. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to place Plaintiff Charmaine Floyd on the list of restricted filers. The Clerk is DIRECTED not to accept any future filings from Plaintiff unless Plaintiff (1) pays the filing fee; (2) affirms under oath that he is in imminent threat of serious physical injury; (3) is represented by counsel; or (4) obtains leave of court to file. See Miller v. Donald, 541 F. 3d 1091, 1096–98 (11th Cir. 2008) (discussing appropriate restrictions that district courts may place on vexatious litigants). To the extent Plaintiff files a case in another district that is then transferred to this district, the Clerk is directed to notify the judge to whom the case is assigned, in this district, of this Order and Plaintiff's restricted-filer status.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on December 31, 2025.
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record