Banks v. Shenandoah General Construction Company

M.D. Florida

Banks v. Shenandoah General Construction Company

DecidedNovember 4, 2019

Docket2:19-cv-00754

StatusUnknown

This text of Banks v. Shenandoah General Construction Company (Banks v. Shenandoah General Construction Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Banks v. Shenandoah General Construction Company, (M.D. Fla. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

EDDIE ALEXANDER BANKS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:19-cv-754-T-60MRM

SHENANDOAH GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; DANIEL J. DIMERA; and MARGRAT LARRY,

Defendants. ________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

This matter is before the Court sua sponte on Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. #1). Plaintiff has filed what purports to be an in rem suit to enforce a maritime lien as to property located within the Southern District of Florida. Furthermore, the one- page complaint reflects an intent to file in the “United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.” Upon due consideration, the Court finds that this case properly belongs, if anywhere, in the Southern District of Florida rather than the Middle District of Florida. Therefore, the Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice to any right that Plaintiff may have to refile his claim(s) in the Southern District of Florida, if he may do so in good faith.1

1 Upon review of the complaint and exhibits, it appears that Plaintiff subscribes to what is known as the “sovereign citizen movement.” The Court warns Plaintiff that 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 hard-earned 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) Accordingly, it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: 1. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. # 1) is dismissed without prejudice to any right Plaintiff may have to refile his claims in the Southern District of Florida, if he may do so in good faith. 2. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and thereafter close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 4th day of November, 2019.

a A #3

—,| i ; a TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

(citing Roach v. Arrist, No. 8:15-cv-2547-T-33AEP, 2016 WL 8943290, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2016)).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

EDDIE ALEXANDER BANKS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:19-cv-754-T-60MRM

SHENANDOAH GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; DANIEL J. DIMERA; and MARGRAT LARRY,

Defendants. ________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

This matter is before the Court sua sponte on Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. #1). Plaintiff has filed what purports to be an in rem suit to enforce a maritime lien as to property located within the Southern District of Florida. Furthermore, the one- page complaint reflects an intent to file in the “United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.” Upon due consideration, the Court finds that this case properly belongs, if anywhere, in the Southern District of Florida rather than the Middle District of Florida. Therefore, the Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice to any right that Plaintiff may have to refile his claim(s) in the Southern District of Florida, if he may do so in good faith.1

1 Upon review of the complaint and exhibits, it appears that Plaintiff subscribes to what is known as the “sovereign citizen movement.” The Court warns Plaintiff that 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 hard-earned 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) Accordingly, it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: 1. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. # 1) is dismissed without prejudice to any right Plaintiff may have to refile his claims in the Southern District of Florida, if he may do so in good faith. 2. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and thereafter close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 4th day of November, 2019.

a A #3

—,| i ; a TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

(citing Roach v. Arrist, No. 8:15-cv-2547-T-33AEP, 2016 WL 8943290, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2016)).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Banks v. Shenandoah General Construction Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banks-v-shenandoah-general-construction-company-flmd-2019.