THOMAS v. LAWRENCE

• Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
• Decided: July 7, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00157
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION MARCIA THOMAS,

Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 4:25cv157-MW-MAF LEON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., Defendants. _________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Marcia Thomas is proceeding pro se and with in forma pauperis status in this case. See ECF Nos. 1, 20-21. An Order to Show

Cause was entered in this case on May 1, 2025, noting that Plaintiff has initiated five other civil rights cases in this year alone,1 not including this case. This is Plaintiff’s sixth such case. In the instant complaint, Plaintiff

names Revell Lawrence, Gavin Larrmore, and the Tallahassee Police

1 Plaintiff initiated case number 4:25-cv-09-MW-MAF on 01/07/25; she initiated case number 4:25-cv-27-MW-MAF on 01/17/25; she initiated case number 4:25-cv-98-AW-MAF on 03/04/25; she initiated case number 4:25-cv-138-RH-MAF on 03/26/25; she initiated case number 4:25cv157-MW-MAF on 04/08/25; and case number 4:25cv190-MW-MJF was initiated on 04/23/24. Page 2 of 7 Department as Defendants in this case. ECF No. 1. However, Plaintiff’s claims against Tallahassee Police Department, Chief Revell Lawrence, and

Officer Gavin Larrmore were previously litigated and dismissed. See case numbers 4:21cv111-MW-MAF, 4:24cv380-MW-MAF, 4:25cv27-MW-MAF, and USCA11 case number 21-13042. An Order entered on April 21, 2025, informed Plaintiff that she could

not “continue to file cases against the same Defendants when the basis for her claims have already been dismissed.” ECF No. 6 at 3. A litigant is not permitted to have multiple bites of the same apple as the doctrine of res

judicata bars subsequent suits when (1) there has been a final judgment on the merits, (2) the decision was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) the parties are the same in both suits; and (4) the same cause of action is involved in both cases. I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson

National Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1549 (11th Cir. 1986). Res judicata applies to foreclose re-litigation of matters “that were litigated or could have been litigated in an earlier suit.” Id.

That Order explained that Plaintiff’s complaint in this case, ECF No. 1, raised claims based on the same events from 2019 and 2020 which Plaintiff litigated previously in case number 4:21cv111-MW-MAF. ECF No. Case No. 4:25cv157-MW-MAF Page 3 of 7 6 at 4. In that 2021 case, Plaintiff presented her claims of “direct energy beams,” cloaking systems, invisible screens and radiation, gang stalking,

electromagnetic fields, arsenic, and a conspiracy against her. Among the named Defendants in that case were Lawrence Revell, Gavin Larrmore, and the Tallahassee Police Department. Those claims in case number 4:21cv111 were dismissed for failure to state a claim, her motion for

reconsideration was denied, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. See ECF Nos. 24, 27, 35, and 37 of that case. Judgment was entered by this Court, a court of competent jurisdiction.

Although Plaintiff was informed that this case was redundant to her prior cases, see ECF No. 6 of this case, she has pressed forward. Plaintiff filed two amended in forma pauperis motions, ECF Nos. 7 and 12, a notice of change of address, ECF No. 8, and a response, ECF No. 10, to that

prior Order. An Order to Show Cause was then entered, ECF No. 9, requiring Plaintiff to demonstrate why this case was not redundant and to demonstrate why sanctions should not be imposed against her pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. That Order explained that the Court could sanction a plaintiff who repeatedly brings claims and makes legal

Case No. 4:25cv157-MW-MAF Page 4 of 7 contentions that are not warranted by existing law and have been dismissed on the merits. ECF No. 9 at 4 (citing to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)).

“The purpose of Rule 11 sanctions is to reduce frivolous claims, defenses, or motions, and to deter costly meritless maneuvers.” Kaplan v. DaimlerChrysler, A.G., 331 F.3d 1251, 1255 (11th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted) (quoted in Thomas v. Early Cnty., Ga., 518 F. App’x 645, 646

(11th Cir. 2013) (holding that sanctions under Rule 11 are appropriate when a plaintiff files a second, identical case when Plaintiff know the first case was dismissed as frivolous and presented “no colorable basis in law

or fact”)). Plaintiff has filed case after case in this Court against the same Defendants.2 All of Plaintiff’s cases have been dismissed for failure to state a claim and as frivolous. Furthermore, Plaintiff has been informed that claims based on events from 2019 are time barred.

Plaintiff was required to file a response to the Order to Show Cause no later than May 30, 2025. ECF No. 9. That deadline was reiterated to Plaintiff in several subsequent Orders. ECF Nos. 11, 13. It was then

extended until June 13, 2025. ECF No. 17. In response, Plaintiff

2 Plaintiff has also begun filing multiple cases against HCA Hospital as well. See case numbers 4:25cv09-MW-MAF, 4:25cv138-RH-MAF, and 4:25cv190-MW-MJF. Case No. 4:25cv157-MW-MAF Page 5 of 7 maintains her determination “to fight for her constitutional rights.” ECF No. 20 at 7. She also contends that “she was not fully aware of the ongoing

conspiracy against her rights until 2024 . . . .” Id. at 8, 10. Those assertions are frivolous and false because the fifth amended complaint Plaintiff filed in case number 4:21cv111 on July 6, 2021, alleged a conspiracy between the Defendants. See ECF No. 20 of that case.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims in this case are frivolous, redundant, and barred by the doctrine or res judicata. Plaintiff has not provided a legal argument to show that her claims should be permitted to

proceed under any viable legal theory. Furthermore, it is apparent from her response that Plaintiff will continue to file lawsuits about these events unless a sanction is imposed under the authority of Rule 11. Rule 11 provides that a “court may impose an appropriate sanction”

on a party that violates Rule 11. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1). “A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 11(c)(4). “The sanction may include nonmonetary directives,” which in this case, would be appropriate. That is because Plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status in all of her cases and imposition of a Case No. 4:25cv157-MW-MAF Page 6 of 7 monetary sanction might be an impossible condition. Thus, it is recommended that, as a sanction under Rule 11, Plaintiff not be permitted

to file a lawsuit against Revell Lawrence, Gavin Larrmore, or the Tallahassee Police Department which deals with events occurring prior to July 1, 2022, unless the complaint is signed by an attorney in good standing who is licensed to practice law.

RECOMMENDATION In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED as frivolous and as barred

by res judicata, and that Plaintiff be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c) for filing repetitive claims that are frivolous and redundant. IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on July 7, 2025.

S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the Case No. 4:25cv157-MW-MAF Page 7 of 7 Court’s internal use only and does not control. If a party fails to object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case No. 4:25cv157-MW-MAF