Haggerty

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

MICHAEL GEORGE HAGGERTY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 2:25-cv-00998-JES-NPM

RICK SCOTT, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on review of the file.

Since initiating this action, plaintiff has filed numerous motions

seeking expedited service, to change venue, to compel records on

an emergency basis, for the appointment of a special master and

for a preliminary injunction. When such labels as “expedited”,

“time-sensitive”, or “emergency” are included in the title, “the

clerk and the court immediately pause their work on other cases

and redirect their attention to the purported emergency—even after

hours.” Hytto pte. Ltd. v. Olivares, No. 2:25-CV-576-KCD-NPM,

2025 WL 2829541, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2025). As such, the

Local Rules warn parties that “[t]he unwarranted designation of a

motion as an emergency can result in a sanction.” M.D. Fla.

3.01(f). See also (Doc. #4, pp. 8-9). “The repeated, unwarranted

designation of a motion as an emergency motion ‘unfairly disfavors

other litigants who, despite expeditious prosecution of each case

and scrupulous attention to each local and federal rule of

procedure, must wait patiently while the court disposes of a

feigned emergency.’” Onward Healthcare, Inc. v. Runnels, No. 6:12-

CV-508-ORL-37, 2012 WL 1259074, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2012)

(quoting Bravado Int'l Grp. Merch.SE Servs., Inc. v. Smith, No.

8:12–cv–613, 2012 WL 1155858, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2012)).

This will be the only warning before sanctions are considered.

The Court addresses each of these matters below. Defendants have

not been served or appeared therefore the motions are ripe.

1. Emergency Motion to Expedite Subpoena Process and Recognize

Payment of Filing Fee (Doc. #5), Consolidated Federal

Subpoena and Motion to Compel Telecommunications and

Electronic Records (Doc. #7), and Emergency Motion for

Court Order Compelling Production of Records and Subpoena

Duces Tecum for Evidence Unlawfully Withheld by Lee County

Court and Related to the July 28th Meeting, Staged

Motorcycle Accident, and December 1st Assault (Doc. #13):

Plaintiff initiated the Complaint (Doc. #1) with an

Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or

Costs (Doc. #2). Not content to wait for review, plaintiff paid

the filing fee approximately two weeks later along with the motions

to expedite the issuance of subpoenas pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

45. The first motion seeks to have the Court issue subpoenas

compelling the production of phone records, surveillance video,

and location data due to “ongoing obstruction” in a related state

proceeding. Plaintiff paid the filing fee “despite indigent

status” for the purpose of having the subpoenas issued. The second

motion seeks the issuance of subpoenas for telephone provider

information including call logs, text messages, and emails because

of “judicial interference” in ongoing state court litigation and

the necessity for “Federal oversight”. The third motion seeks

evidence that “was denied or withheld by Judge Shenko” and the Lee

County Sheriff’s Office that is vital this federal case. This

includes video footage of “judicial corridors” and keycard entries

for attorneys and state attorney staff, and internal judicial

communications.

Plaintiff seeks to compel defendants to turn over sensitive

data ex parte. In other words, before service of process or the

opportunity to respond to the allegations in the Complaint

regarding matters that may or may not be pending in state court

without a legal basis for the extraordinary relief. Subpoenas are

issued from the Court where the action is pending. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 45(a)(2). The Court finds no emergency exists that what

override the fundamental requirements for plaintiff to serve

defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Plaintiff is cautioned

that these requests are not emergencies and the parties must submit

a discovery plan by filing a Uniform Case Management Report either:

(1) “within forty days after any defendant appears”; (2) “within

forty days after the docketing of an action removed or transferred

to this court”; or (3) “within seventy days after service on the

United States attorney in an action against the United States, its

agencies, or employees.” (Doc. #4 at 4.) As the parties have not

been served or appeared, discovery requests are premature. The

motions will be denied in their entirety.

2. Motion to Change Venue (Doc. #6) and Motion to Disqualify

Federal Judge (Doc. #37):

Plaintiff seeks to transfer this case to a venue outside of

the State of Florida because some of the defendants include a

United States Senator representing Florida, “The Governor’s

Mansion of Florida” and a judicial officer who was previously

employed in the federal courthouse prior to this appointment to

the state bench. Plaintiff initiated this case in Fort Myers,

Florida. If plaintiff wishes to pursue his case in a different

venue, such as the proposed choices of the District of Columbia

because of federal defendants or the Southern District of Georgia

because it is close, he may proceed accordingly and file the case

in the venue he desires. Of course, this would be subject to

another Court accepting jurisdiction over a case with no tenable

connection to the case or controversy.

Plaintiff also seeks to disqualify the undersigned for not

deciding his many motions more immediately. Plaintiff argues that

the undersigned has “professional ties to Lee County judicial

staff” and cannot impartially decide a case involving local

officials with “whom the judge has longstanding relationships.”

The appearance of counsel in Court as a prosecutor or counsel of

record is an insufficient basis to warrant recusal. Finding no

qualifying basis under 28 U.S.C. § 455, the Court finds that

disqualification is not required. The motions are denied.

3. Emergency Motion to Expedite Ruling (Doc. #20), Emergency

Motion for Appointment of Special Federal Master, Federal

Oversight, and Referral for Criminal Investigation of State

Officials and Judicial Actors (Doc. #25), and untitled

request for a federal protective order (Doc. #27):

In the first “emergency” motion, plaintiff seeks in bullet

form fashion the appointment of a special master, federal

protective oversight, and to prevent Judge Cohen further action in

a state court case. Plaintiff also seeks to seal exhibits from

public access without complying with the requirements of M.D. Fla.

R. 1.11. In the second motion, plaintiff seeks to “refer all

evidence of criminal conduct” by state officials to a federal

prosecutor, to exercise federal oversight, and to appoint a special

master. In the third motion, plaintiff seeks a federal protective

order prohibiting Judge Cohen from further judicial involvement in

a state court matter and for reassignment to protect plaintiff

from retaliation.

“[Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)] and its progeny

espouse a strong federal policy against federal-court interference

with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary

circumstances. The policies underlying Younger abstention have

been frequently reiterated by this Court. The notion of “comity”

includes “a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of

the fact that the entire country is made up of a Union of separate

state governments, and a continuance of the belief that the

National Government will fare best if the States and their

institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in

their separate ways.” Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State

Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (citation omitted). Frankly,

the Court has no authority to grant the relief sought in the

motions based on the little to no information provided. Federal

courts have limited jurisdiction and may not “exercise

jurisdiction absent a statutory basis.” Home Depot U. S. A., Inc.

v. Jackson, 587 U.S. 435, 437, 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1746, 204 L. Ed.

2d 34 (2019) (citation omitted). “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine ‘is

a jurisdictional rule that precludes the lower federal courts from

reviewing state court judgments.’” Efron v. Candelario, 110 F.4th

1229, 1235 (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1958 (2025)

(quoting Alvarez v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., 679 F.3d 1257, 1262 (11th

Cir. 2012)). If plaintiff’s request “requires a federal district

court to review and reject a state court decision,” the request is

barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Efron v. Candelario, 110

F.4th 1229, 1236 & n.7(11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct.

1958, 221 L. Ed. 2d 738 (2025).

As the motions are unsupported by any authority for the Court

to determine jurisdiction interfere with the state action, with

state actors, or to appoint a special master, the motions are

denied. To the extent that plaintiff seeks a referral to the U.S.

Attorney’s Office, “[t]he decision as to which crimes and criminals

to prosecute is entrusted by the Constitution not to the judiciary,

but to the executive who is charged with seeing that laws are

enforced. [] The judiciary cannot interfere with a prosecutor's

exercise of charging discretion, except in narrow circumstances

where it is necessary to do so in order to discharge the judicial

function of interpreting and applying the Constitution.” United

States v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800, 807 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation

omitted). The motion will be denied without prejudice to plaintiff

directing his request to the appropriate party.

4. Motion to Reconsider as Indigent (In Forma Pauperis) (Doc.

#23) and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #32):

While the first motion is styled as a motion for

reconsideration, the Court construes it as an objection to the

Magistrate Judge’s Order. Because Plaintiff’s objections are to

the magistrate judge’s non-dispositive in forma pauperis order

(Doc. #19), the Court applies the clearly erroneous or contrary to

law standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“When a pretrial matter not

dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a

magistrate judge to hear and decide … [t]he district judge in the

case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any

part of the order that is clearly erroneous of contrary to law.”).

On November 19, 2025, Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell

entered an Endorsed Order denying as moot Plaintiff’s request to

proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. #19.) Since plaintiff paid the

filing fee after seeking to proceed in forma pauperis, there was

nothing clearly erroneous or contrary to law in finding the request

moot. See, e.g., Macker v. Naylor, No. 6:23-cv-1963-JSS-DCI, 2025

WL 1158698, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2025)(finding the court

lacked any basis to grant the requested relief to proceed IFP after

the plaintiff paid the filing fee); Rohrig v. Dallas Bull(301),

LLC, No. 8:21-cv-1109-MSS-JSS, 2021 WL 7542560, at *1 (M.D. Fla.

July 28, 2021)(finding the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis moot once the plaintiff had paid the filing fee), report

and recommendation adopted by, 2021 WL 7542559 (Oct. 13, 2021).

The objection is overruled.

Plaintiff also seeks appointment of counsel in the motion.

Plaintiff asserts in his motion that he has difficulty obtaining

justice due to: (1) repeated denial of subpoenas in state court;

(2) interference with filings; (3) unauthorized surveillance; (4)

government-connected defendants; (5) fourteen years of ongoing

state harassment; (6) denials of due process in multiple courts;

(7) the extreme complexity of the issues and the number of

defendants; and (8) his inability to effectively present evidence,

witness examinations, and ensuring the case proceeds fairly and on

the merits. (Doc. #23.) Unlike criminal defendants, a “plaintiff

in a civil case has no constitutional right to counsel.” Bass v.

Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999); Poole v. Lambert,

819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987). Section 1915(e)(1)

authorizes the Court to appoint counsel for civil litigants

proceeding in forma pauperis; however, plaintiff is not currently

proceeding in forma pauperis. This leads to the new motion to

proceed in forma pauperis.

In the next motion, plaintiff indicates that he is indigent

and “unable to pay court filing fees, service fees, or litigation-

related expenses.” To the extent that plaintiff’s previously filed

application reflects a total monthly income of $2,231, about $600

in cash, two cars worth about $32,000 total, and monthly expenses

of roughly $2,000, the Court finds that plaintiff is financially

eligible. That being said, plaintiff must still satisfy review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to determine if the action “(i) is

frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief

may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant

who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Until

the Court reviews the pleading, the request to appoint counsel and

to proceed in forma pauperis will remain under advisement.

5. Motion to Accept the 4th Amended Complaint (Doc. #34) and

Motion for Service of Process by U.S. Marshals Service

(Doc. #33):

Since the inception of this action, plaintiff has repeatedly

filed amended pleadings pending review of his emergency motions.

Before the Court can decide if plaintiff should be granted the

ability to proceed in forma pauperis and facilitate service of

1

process, the Court must review the proposed complaint.

The latest and purportedly “final version” includes 39

defendants with bullet points to indicate actions by each defendant

with no specific factual allegations. The entire “factual

background” is as follows:

A. Executive Order 12-64 Kidnapping & False

Arrest (2011-2012)

Fabricated threat; no probable cause; Monroe

County actors conspired to imprison Plaintiff.

B. Judicial Misconduct and Record Manipulation

(2012-2025)

Judges Cohen, Shenko, Morgan, Firtel, Miller,

Mirra, and Swett acted to obstruct filings,

alter records, deny hearings, and protect the

Governor's Mansion and prosecutors.

C. Prosecutorial Conspiracies

1

A Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. #31) was filed before

plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file the document.

Ward, Madruga, Rundell, Demiglia, Fox,

Justham, Wilson maliciously prosecuted

Plaintiff without probable cause.

D. Staged Motorcycle Collision-December 1,

2024

Barrios and Jenkins, coordinated with Dowling,

caused physical injury; Gould and others

covered up evidence.

E. Courthouse Incident-July 28, 2025

Dowling and Barrios entered Judge Cohen's

chambers; concealed coordination; observed

later at bar after collusion.

F. Surveillance, Harassment, Threats

Unknown Florida Highway Trooper and Lee County

Sheriff's internal officers stationed

covertly near Plaintiff's residence.

G. False Arrests in 2003 and 2011

Fabricated affidavits; unlawful detention

without indictment.

H. Interference with Employment & Business

Sabotage of Plaintiff's product, the French

Tickler; harassment of housing management;

economic targeting.

I. Bar & JQC Failures

Florida Bar attorneys Dixon-Greer and Huston,

and JQC official Blan Teagle, knowingly

refused to act.

J. FBI, FDLE, and State Attorney Investigation

Unit Failures

Ignored credible threats, complaints, and

evidence of criminal conspiracy.

(Doc. #34-1, pp. 8-11.) “A complaint is a shotgun pleading if it

contains pervasive conclusory and immaterial facts not obviously

connected to a specific claim or asserts multiple claims without

specifying who is responsible or which persons the claim is brought

against. [] A shotgun pleading makes it virtually impossible to

know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claims

for relief.” Brown v. Columbus Police Dep’t, No. 23-11896, 2024

WL 3451862, at *6 (11th Cir. July 18, 2024). “Shotgun pleadings,

whether filed by plaintiffs or defendants, exact an intolerable

toll on the trial court's docket, lead to unnecessary and

unchannelled discovery, and impose unwarranted expense on the

litigants, the court and the court's parajudicial personnel and

resources. Moreover, justice is delayed for the litigants who are

‘standing in line,’ waiting for their cases to be heard.” Cramer

v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997).

There are four types of shotgun pleadings: (1) a complaint

with multiple counts where each count adopts all preceding counts

“causing each successive count to carry all that came before and

the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint”; (2)

“a complaint that … is guilty of the venial sin of being replete

with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously

connected to any particular cause of action”; (3) a complaint that

fails to separate into separate counts each claim for relief; and

(4) “there is the relatively rare sin of asserting multiple claims

against multiple defendants without specifying which of the

defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which

of the defendants the claim is brought against.” Weiland v. Palm

Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir.

2015).

The fourth amended complaint exhibits shotgun pleading

characteristics, including conclusory, vague, and broad statements

that are not obviously connected to a particular cause of action,

and it asserts multiple claims against multiple defendants without

specifying which defendant is responsible for which act. In sum,

the complaint violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10

and fails to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that

a complaint include a “short and plain statement of the claim”

with “simple, concise, and direct” allegations. Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2), (d)(1). Rule 10 of the Federal Rules further provides

that claims must be in numbered paragraphs and “[i]f doing so would

promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or

occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count[.]” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 10(b). Pro se complaints are held to less stringent

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Nevertheless,

pro se litigants are not exempt from complying with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 8(a)(2)’s pleading

standard. GJR Investments, Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d

1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Yet even in the case of pro se

litigants this leniency does not give a court license to serve as

de facto counsel for a party, [] or to rewrite an otherwise

deficient pleading in order to sustain an action[.]” (internal

citations omitted)), overruled on other grounds as recognized in

Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 706 (11th Cir. 2010); see also

Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (stating that

pro se litigants are “subject to the relevant law and rules of

court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”). The

motion to amend is denied based on the proposed document but the

Court will allow plaintiff to amend the pleading to determine if

in forma pauperis status should be granted.

In amending, plaintiff should endeavor to comply with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 8(a),

A pleading that states a claim for relief must

contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds

for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court

already has jurisdiction and the claim needs

no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may

include relief in the alternative or different

types of relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Under Rule 10(b),

A party must state its claims or defenses in

numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as

practicable to a single set of circumstances.

A later pleading may refer by number to a

paragraph in an earlier pleading. If doing so

would promote clarity, each claim founded on

a separate transaction or occurrence--and each

defense other than a denial--must be stated in

a separate count or defense.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff should specify the Court’s basis

for subject matter jurisdiction, and the legal basis for his claim

or claims with supporting facts. Plaintiff should include

references to the federal laws and/or sections of the United States

Constitution that have been violated for each defendant. For

additional resources and assistance, plaintiff may wish to review

the form complaints available on the Court’s website, for example

https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-forms/complaint-violation-

civil-rights-non-prisoner.2

The motion to amend will be denied without prejudice to

plaintiff filing a Fifth Amended Complaint that follows the

parameters outlined above. Once filed, the Magistrate Judge will

consider the pleading pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to determine

whether plaintiff should be granted in forma pauperis status. The

2

The website has tips, answers to frequently-asked questions,

and sample forms. There is also a link that may help plaintiff

generate the amended complaint.

will be denied as premature pending review of the Fifth Amended

Complaint.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Expedite Subpoena Process

and Recognize Payment of Filing Fee (Doc. #5) is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff’s Consolidated Federal Subpoena and Motion to

Compel Telecommunications and Electronic Records (Doc. #7)

is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Court Order Compelling

Production of Records and Subpoena Duces Tecum for Evidence

Unlawfully Withheld by Lee County Court and Related to the

July 28th Meeting, Staged Motorcycle Accident, and December

1st Assault (Doc. #13) is DENIED.

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Change Venue (Doc. #6) is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Federal Judge (Doc. #37)

is DENIED.

6. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Expedite Ruling (Doc. #20)

is DENIED.

7. Emergency Motion for Appointment of Special Federal Master,

Federal Oversight, and Referral for Criminal Investigation

of State Officials and Judicial Actors (Doc. #25) is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

8. Plaintiff’s untitled request for a federal protective order

(Doc. #27) is DENIED.

9. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider as Indigent (In Forma

Pauperis) (Doc. #23) is OVERRULED and the request for an

appointment of counsel remains UNDER ADVISEMENT.

10. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc.

#32) is GRANTED as to financially eligibility but remains

pending and UNDER ADVISEMENT pending review of the Fifth

Amended Complaint.

11. Plaintiff’s Motion to Accept the 4th Amended Complaint

(Doc. #34) is DENIED and the Fourth Amended Complaint is

dismissed without prejudice to filing a Fifth Amended

Complaint within THIRTY (30) DAYS of this Opinion and

Order.

12. Plaintiff’s Motion for Service of Process by U.S.

Marshals Service (Doc. #33) is DENIED AS PREMATURE.

13. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Compel Court Action on

Pending Motions, to Compel Hearings, to Require U.S.

Marshal Service of Process, to Act on Change of Venue

Motion, and Formal Notice of Oingoing Judicial Delay,

Obstruction, and Deprivation of Constitutional Rights

(Doc. #36) is DENIED AS MOOT. All motions have been

addressed herein.

DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 15th day of

December 2025.

AA? = Pe

JGH E. STEELE

5 IOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies:

Hon. Nicholas P. Mizell

Plaintiff

Counsel of record