PEPE v. FINLEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

THOMAS PEPE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:25cv837-TKW-HTC

SUSAN FINLEY,

Defendant.

____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Thomas Pepe, proceeding pro se, has filed yet another complaint

arising out of his dissatisfaction with the handling and results of probate proceedings

that are or were pending in a state court in the Middle District of Florida, involving

the administration of his father’s estate. Doc. 1. As discussed further below, by the

undersigned’s count, this is the sixteenth case Plaintiff has filed in this District in the

last few months.

In this case, as he has done in others, Plaintiff sues an attorney who was

involved in those probate proceedings. Also, as he has done in other cases, he filed

this case in the wrong venue. However, because this case belongs in state court, the

undersigned recommends the action be dismissed rather than transferred to the

Middle District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406. Additionally, based on Plaintiff’s history of

filing frivolous litigation, the undersigned recommends the Court issue an injunction

restricting Plaintiff’s ability to file further cases in this District.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper (1) in any judicial district in

which any defendant resides, (2) in any judicial district in which a substantial part

of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of

property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in

which the action may otherwise be brought, any judicial district in which any

defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)–(3). As stated above, venue is not proper in this District.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Finley, an attorney located in Boca Raton, Florida,

engaged in fraud, legal malpractice, and civil conspiracy by failing to notify him an

escrow payment was not made during a real estate transaction involving his father’s

home; as relief, he seeks $250 million in damages. Based on the exhibits attached

to the complaint, the property at issue is located in Fort Myers, Florida. Thus, despite

Plaintiff’s allegations to the contrary, venue is not proper in this District.

When a case is filed in the wrong district, the district court “shall dismiss, or

if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which

it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Here, the case should be

dismissed rather than transferred because Plaintiff’s claims belong in state court.

“[A] federal district court must have at least one of the three types of subject

matter jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction under a specific statutory grant; (2) federal

question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; or (3) diversity jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).” Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp., 128 F.3d 1466,

1469 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies

outside [of federal courts’] limited jurisdiction, … and the burden of establishing the

contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff asserts he is invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, but he

does not allege a violation of any federal law, and his complaint does not otherwise

present a substantial federal question. See Cmty. State Bank v. Strong, 651 F.3d

1241, 1251 (11th Cir. 2011) (The federal question at issue “must appear on the face

of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint.”). Instead, his claims for fraud, legal

malpractice, and civil conspiracy are all state law claims. “The appropriate

jurisdiction for such state law claims, absent a showing of federal diversity

jurisdiction, is state court. Therefore, the record does not support federal question

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”1 Betts v. Betts, No. 3:13-CV-288, 2013 WL

1 While Pepe also references 28 U.S.C. § 1367, that statute only allows federal courts to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that are related to a federal claim. See Royal Canin

U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 27 (2025) (Under § 1367, “jurisdiction over a federal-

law claim brings with it supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim arising from the same

facts.”). It does not provide a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction in the absence of a federal claim.

4096086, at *5 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2013) (finding no federal jurisdiction in a case

involving fraud under Florida law); see also Kinsey v. King, 257 F. App’x 136, 139

(11th Cir. 2007) (“Any state-law claims, including legal malpractice, arise out of

Gould’s representation of the Kinseys in negotiating a settlement agreement and his

refusal to continue that representation after the Kinseys rejected that agreement. The

district court lacks federal question jurisdiction over any such claims.”).

Moreover, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to establish the Court has diversity

jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts have original

jurisdiction of actions between citizens of different states when the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff indicates he and Defendant Finley are

located in Florida.2 Therefore, there is no diversity of citizenship. See McDonald v.

Equitable Life Ins. Co. of Iowa, 13 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 1280 (M.D. Ala. 1998) (“[F]or

diversity jurisdiction to exist, there must be ‘complete diversity,’ that is, each

defendant must be a citizen of a state different from that of each plaintiff.”) (citations

omitted). Because Plaintiff has not established this case involves a question of

federal law, or that the Court has diversity jurisdiction, the case should be dismissed.

Finally, Plaintiff has filed at least twenty cases in this District. Sixteen were

filed in the past month and a half and most have been dismissed or recommended

2 Plaintiff indicates he resides in Gulf Breeze, Florida, and Defendant Finley is an attorney with

an office in Boca Raton, Florida.

for dismissal for: (1) failure to state a claim; (2) judicial immunity; (3) improper

venue; or (4) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.3 See e.g., Pepe v. Shenko, Case No.

3:25cv709-TKW-ZCB, Doc.12 (dismissing suit against state court judge with

prejudice based on judicial immunity); Pepe v. Pepe, Case No. 3:25cv739-TKW-

HTC, Doc. 7 (pending report recommending dismissal based on improper venue and

frivolity); Pepe v. Pivachek, Case No. 3:25cv667-TKW-ZCB, Doc. 9 (dismissing

suit against state court judge with prejudice based on judicial immunity); Pepe v.

Confreda, Case No. 3:25cv730-TKW-HTC, Doc. 9 (dismissing suit based on

improper venue and failure to state a claim); Pepe v. Winesett, Case No. 3:25cv665-

MCR-ZCB, Doc. 6 (pending report recommending dismissal based on judicial

immunity in suit against state court judge); Pepe v. Lajqi, et al., Case No. 3:25cv565-

MCR-ZCB, Doc. 8 (pending report recommending dismissal based on lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction); Pepe v. Harrell, et al., Case No. 3:25cv725-TKW-ZCB,

Doc. 7 (pending report recommending dismissal based on lack of subject-matter

3 Two of the sixteen cases were dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule

5.3, which requires a plaintiff to pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

when filing a complaint. See Pepe v. Shenko, Case No. 3:25cv644-TKW-ZCB; Pepe v. Fuller,

Case No. 3:25cv645-TKW-ZCB. The remaining cases suffer from the same deficiencies as the

cases that have been dismissed or recommended for dismissal. See Pepe v. Brown, Case No.

3:25cv723-TKW-ZCB (suing attorneys and judges involved in state court proceedings in the

Middle District); Pepe v. Goldin, Case No. 3:25cv727-MCR-ZCB (suing attorney involved in state

court proceedings in the Middle District); Pepe v. Cattano, Case No. 3:25cv742-MCR-ZCB (suing

his sister for interfering with their father’s estate in the Middle District); Pepe v. Rubino, Case No.

3:25cv838-MCR-ZCB (suing attorney who represented Plaintiff in the probate proceedings in the

Middle District).

jurisdiction); Pepe v. Laboda, Case No. 3:25cv666-MCR-HTC, Doc. 4 (transferring

case filed against state court judge to the Middle District of Florida); Pepe v. Fuller,

Case No. 3:25cv707-TKW-ZCB, Doc. 7 (pending report recommending dismissal

based on judicial immunity in suit against state court judge). Indeed, on May 22,

2025, the Court warned Plaintiff “that his ability to file cases in this Court may be

restricted if he continues filing multiple, meritless lawsuits against anyone and

everyone connected to his state court proceedings.” See Pepe v. Pivachek, Case No.

3:25cv667-TKW-ZCB, Doc. 6. Despite this warning, Plaintiff has continued to file

similar frivolous cases.

Given Plaintiff’s abusive litigation history, the undersigned recommends

Plaintiff be enjoined from filing a new pro se complaint in this district without the

payment of the filing fee or the submission of an affidavit from an attorney in good

standing attesting that Plaintiff’s complaint has been reviewed and that the factual

allegations contained therein provide a good faith basis for venue and jurisdiction in

this Court.

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:

1. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28

U.S.C. § 1406.

2. That Plaintiff be enjoined and prohibited from filing any new pro se

complaints in this District unless the complaint is accompanied by either:

a. full payment of the filing fee; or

b. an affidavit by a licensed attorney in good standing in this

District or in the jurisdiction where the attorney is admitted, attesting that the

attorney has reviewed the complaint and finds the factual allegations alleged provide

a good faith basis for venue and jurisdiction in this District.

3. That all pending motions be TERMINATED.

4. That the clerk close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 24th day of June, 2025.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon

HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days of the date of the Report and Recommendation.  Any different

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only

and does not control.  An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon

all other parties.  A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or

recommendations contained in a report and recommendation 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.