Riethmiller v. Ezell et al

Filing 3

ORDER: This case is dismissed and the Clerk is directed to close this case and terminate any pending motions as moot. Plaintiff is also notified that if she files any future pleadings that the Court deems legally frivolous, she will be designated as a vexatious litigant which will require her to seek Court approval prior to filing future actions. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 8/10/2012. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

ANNAMARIE D. RIETHMILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-1796-T-30AEP

BRAXTON EZELL, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint against
Defendants. The Court concludes that the complaint is utterly frivolous and should be
dismissed.
This is now the seventh case Plaintiff has filed in the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division. The previous six cases were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and/or for
being barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Although not a model of clarity, Plaintiff’s
rambling, sixty-five page complaint against fifty-three Defendants,1 including the President
of the United States, the Surgeon General, Hillary Clinton, Eric H. Holder, the states of New
York and Georgia, the Florida Senate, the Florida Congress, and the United States Congress
and Senate appears, yet again, to seek some sort of relief related to her domestic dispute with
her ex-husband and his mistress/psychiatrist.

1

It appears that the undersigned is also a named Defendant; however, the Court sees no
reason to recuse himself given the frivolous nature of Plaintiff’s complaint.

As the federal judges in this district held in Plaintiff’s prior cases, in which she was
seeking emergency injunctive relief arising from actions occurring in state court,2 this Court
does not have jurisdiction over these matters. Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is so unclear that
it is impossible for this Court to glean any jurisdictional basis.
Also, because Plaintiff’s complaint is entirely unclear, consists of stream of
consciousness thoughts, and borders on the insensible and absurd, it fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
To the extent Plaintiff is challenging a previous state-court judgment, such a challenge
would be barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.
413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).
In sum, Plaintiff’s complaint is entirely without merit and frivolous. Accordingly, it
would be futile to allow Plaintiff to amend her complaint, especially given her history of
frivolous filings with this Court.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

This case is dismissed and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and

terminate any pending motions as moot.

2

See 10cv1763, 10cv1892, 10mc84, 10mc94, 10mc95, 11cv2194.
Page 2 of 3

2.

Plaintiff is also notified that if she files any future pleadings that the Court

deems legally frivolous, she will be designated as a vexatious litigant which will require her
to seek Court approval prior to filing future actions.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on August 10, 2012.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Even\2012\12-cv-1796.dismiss.frm

Page 3 of 3