The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
MOLIERE DIMANCHE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 6:25-CV-2255-JES-DNF
HEATHER PINDER-RODRIGUEZ;
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN
AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY,
FLORIDA; STATE OF FLORIDA;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
CITY OF ORLANDO; ORANGE
COUNTY; LOWNDES DRSDICK
DOSTER KANTOR & REED P.A.;
JULIA L. FREY; BILL DYMOND;
LAUREN FREY-HAMMER; LOU FREY
INSTITUTE; JAMES WALSON;
DAVID CARTER; DAVID CARTER
PSY D. PLLC; EMERSON R.
THOMPSON; MARK BLECHMAN;
ANDREW EDWARDS; RICHARD I.
WALLSH; MONIQUE H. WORRELL;
LUIS CALDERON; PHIL DIAMON;
ORANGE COUNTY COMPTROLLER;
AMY MERCADO; ORANGE COUNTY
PROPERTY APPRAISER; TROY
STICKLE; TAKELA JACKSON;
RABIH TABBARA; OFFICER JOHN
DOE #1; OFFICER JOHN DOE #2;
RICHARD CARPENTER; OFFICER
JANE DOE; OFFICER JANE DOE
#2; STEVE BRENTON; NICOLAS
LUCIANO MONTES; DAVID PEREZ;
ANTONIO VARGAS; DEBROAH
BRADLEY; TERRI WILSON; ROSE
ACOSTA; JOHN BEAMER; MELISSA
GEIST; JESSICA LEBELLE;
TARLINKA NUNEZ-NAVAROO; ADAM
CORTES; OFFICER CORTES;
AARON GOSS; BRENT FELLOWS;
DAVID ALBAN; OFFICER JOHN
DOE #3; OFFICER JOHN DOE #4;
DANIEL MANGANIELLO;
STEPHANIE HERDOCIA; MICHAEL
MASSICOTTE; JOHN HUGH DYER;
LAURIE NOSSAIR; RYAN SMITH;
JOHN MINA; KORENE HINDS;
ERIC SMITH; SALEENA SINGH;
TIFFANY MOORE RUSSELL; HANNY
D.; ROCHELLE K.; APRIL M.
MCCONNELL; DWAIN RIVERS;
CHRISTOPHER CARTY; BLAN
TEAGLE; ROGER HANDBERG;
GEORGE MANGRUM; ROGER J.
MCDONALD; CHERYL ANDERSON;
ANIL SRIVASTAVA; JANET
GONZALES; SUZANNE TRIMBLE;
KAYLE BORDERS; CARLOS E.
MENDOZA; TIMOTHY CORRIGAN;
A. JAMES CRANER; NICK
SHANNIN; JUDAH MANDEL; JES-
HSUN HUANG; LARRY EVANS;
CHRISTOPHER GREY;
CHRISTOPHER WACKES; RAYMOND
DOMINIC; DAVID L. REDFEARN;
MICHAEL PICCOLO; ERIC
DUBOIS; JEFF ASHTON; KARISSA
CHIN-DUNCAN; ANGELA ALVAREZ;
KAREN WONSETLER; LORIE
LUCAS; DANIEL IRICK;
ESTRELLA MELIANS; KATHRYN
SMITH; ALICIA L. LATIMORE;
BRIAN STOKES; BILL COWLES;
SHANNIN LAW FIRM P.A.;
MANDEL LAW PLLC; KATHRYN
SMITH LAW FIRM; WONSETLER &
WEBNER P.A.; EASTWOOD
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC.;
EXTREME MANAGEMENT TEAM;
LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC;
PONDVIEW PROPERTIES; RAFAEL
SALADO; REVERSE MORTGAGE
FUNDING LLC; HERITAGE
FLORIDA JEWISH NEWS; IDEA
CAPITAL GROUP INC.; FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE; STATE ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE; and PUBLIC
DEFENDER’S OFFICE,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s (renewed)
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #25) regarding property in
Orlando that has been “withheld” and the following motions to
dismiss by defendants: (1) defendant Christopher Wackes’ Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. #38); (2) defendants Pondview Properties, LLC’s and
Rafael Salado’s Motion to Dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice
(Doc. #50); (3) defendants Kathryn Smith Law, PLLC’s and Kathryn
Smith’s Motion to Dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice (Doc.
#51) and Amended Motion (Doc. #69) to add a Certificate that the
motion is opposed; and (4) defendant Heritage Florida Jewish News’
Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Objection to Misnomer1 (Doc. #77).
Plaintiff has responded to Christopher Wackes’ Motion (Doc. #81).
The Court declines to take judicial notice, as requested in
the motions to dismiss, at this stage of the proceedings. Two key
arguments common to the motions are discussed below. The motions
are due to be granted.
A. The Verified Complaint
The factual allegations start with a 2008 criminal conviction
in the State of Florida, for which plaintiff states he was found
1 Defendant states that it is named by a fictitious name
rather than the corporate entity’s name, Legal Notices, LLC.
not guilty, but he was wrongfully imprisoned for 3,078 days.
Imbedded into the Complaint are documents relating to that criminal
case. (Doc. #1, ¶¶ 184-201.) From there, plaintiff jumps ahead
to 2022, and a conspiracy involving a law firm in the business of
estate planning opening a bank account in the name of a deceased
man, Cicero B. Greenhouse, and opening a Charles Schwab bank
account in the name of his terminally ill wife, Qurentia P. Throm.
(Id. at 204-211.) An attorney at the firm of Lowndes, Frey,
ordered the cremation of Throm when she died suddenly so it was
never investigated. (Id. at 212-215.)
Plaintiff made an adverse possession claim to an abandoned
residence located at 921 S. Mills Avenue that collided with the
conspiracy. (Id. at 216.) Frey called Orlando police to the
residence after Frey’s sister “had forced entry into the
residence”, and plaintiff was arrested and detained. (Id. at 219-
221.)
Plaintiff goes on to explain that the Orlando police have a
history of killing black men, the state attorney’s office has a
pattern of justifying the killings, and he would have been killed
during the “race-based home invasion.” (Id. at 230-233, 252-260.)
Plaintiff goes on to discuss the prosecution, actions taken by
Wallsh and Edwards. (Id. at 273-304.) Plaintiff also includes
state court judges in the conspiracy. First, Navarro, then
Calderon who took over the case. (Id. at 306-328, 329-351.)
Plaintiff alleges that Geist, the Director of Court Operations for
the Orange County Clerk supervised and oversaw a bond that was not
discharged. (Id. at 354-363.) Plaintiff moves on to the
“unethical conduct” of Walson, the discrimination by Diamond,
Acosta, Wilson, Bradley, Collie, Mercado, Stickle, and Smith to
deprive plaintiff of property, and the weaponization of law
enforcement by City, Smith, Dyer, Rivers, McConnell, Carty, Mina,
and Hinds. (Id. at 364-377, 378-403, 404-423.) Handberg was
aware of the criminal enterprise and a duty to present information
to the grand jury. (Id. at 424-427.)
Plaintiff declared his candidacy for Mayor of the City of
Orlando and alleges election interference. Plaintiff alleges that
Judge Irick had ties to plaintiff’s political opponent. Plaintiff
suffered from privacy intrusion adding Vargas and Perez, plaintiff
alleges professional misconduct by Carter, a failure to act by
Worrell and Russell, an escalation of the conspiracy involving a
property at 2130 Opal Drive in Orlando and defective constructive
service via publication in the Heritage Florida Jewish News. (Id.
at 429, 444, 445, 447-455, 456-458, 459-462, 463-466, 467.) Judge
Ashton is pulled in as he presided over an action related to the
property, Kathryn Smith as counsel for auctioneer Pondview
Properties and her law firm are added for opposing an objection.
(Id. at 468, 470.) Calderon is involved again regarding post-sale
disbursement, who also recruited a proxy to intimidate plaintiff
about his pending Bar complaint against Judah Mandel. (Id. at
471-474.) Bar counsel Wackes dismissed the complaint. (Id. at
479.)
A third “homestead” was targeted in 2024 and is added into
the long-running conspiracy. The address is 13128 Jupiter Hills
Court, Orlando, Florida. This brings in Angela Alvarez, the
managing agent for Extreme Management Team, property management
entity for Eastwood Community Association Inc., to arrive
unannounced under the pretense of a routine inspection for
squatters or adverse possessors and demanding a deed. This
brought in Karen J. Wonsetler, counsel for the HOA who filed a
lien. When plaintiff tried to contest the lien, Ryan Smith and
Orange County Comptroller employees Jane Does 1-4, obstructed the
process. Mercado and the Orange County Property Appraiser’s
Office filed a motion for protective order to quash plaintiff’s
discovery requests. (Id. at 481, 483, 485, 488, 491.) Plaintiff
was turned into a “vexatious litigant” by Kathryn Smith and Heather
Pinder-Rodriguez in violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights
despite having conflicts. (Id. at 498-505.)
The causes of action in the Verified Complaint (Doc. #1) start
on page 195 of the 211-page document, and are as follows:
1. The First Cause of Action alleges that the “Individual
Defendants conducted the affairs of the Ninth Judicial
Circuit of Florida” through a pattern of racketeering
activity, “including but not limited to judges like Latimore
and McDonald, prosecutors like Dominic and Mangrum, and
public defenders like Redfearn.” Plaintiff alleges that
defendants caused injury to his business and property
“warranting dissolution of the Ninth Judicial Circuit”
pursuant to the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act. There are no specific factual
allegations in the cause of action or allegations as to how
each of the identified defendants violated RICO. The Court
assumes the cause of action only applies to the identified
parties.
2. The second cause of action brought against “All Defendants”
alleges that plaintiff was kidnapped and Lowndes, Dymond, and
Frey financially benefitted. Plaintiff further alleges that
Montes, Doe #1, and Doe #2 kidnapped plaintiff and all
defendants financially benefitted while certain defendants
“received the Mills Avenue residence.” All of this is
brought in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1581 and 18 U.S.C. § 1595.
3. The third cause of action alleges a violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) against all
defendants. Plaintiff alleges the “unlawful taking” of his
residence at 921 S. Mills Avenue. Plaintiff alleges a
deceptive “act of Edwards pretending to be an assistant state
attorney” and that Frey and Lowndes “tentatively controlled
police, government agencies, and judges to prevail in the
property dispute,” but other defendants are not identified.
No factual allegations are included.
4. The fourth cause of action alleges the deprivation of rights
against all defendants under 18 U.S.C. § 242, while also
identifying 18 U.S.C. § 245, a statute authorizing
jurisdiction over federally protected activities, and 42
U.S.C. § 3631, providing criminal punishment for civil rights
violations. Plaintiff alleges that defendants collectively
targeted him based on his race resulting in his forced
withdrawal from an election.
5. The fifth cause of action alleges an unlawful detainer against
Frey, Hamner, and Walson for the “illegal forced entry” and
withholding of the residence at 921 S. Mills Avenue in
violation of Fla. Stat. § 82.03, providing that a person
entitled to possession of real property has a cause of action
“against a person who obtained possession of that real
property by forcible entry, unlawful entry, or unlawful
detention and may recover possession and damages.” Fla.
Stat. § 82.03(1).
6. The sixth cause of action against all defendants alleges a
violation of plaintiff’s civil rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in
violation of his First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. There are no
factual allegations as to how each defendant violated
plaintiff’s rights or how they did so under the color of state
law.
7. The seventh cause of action is brought under The Hobbs Act,
18 U.S.C. § 1951, against all defendants for obstructing
interstate commerce and committing extortion. Again, it is
unclear how the criminal statute applies to anyone.
8. The eighth cause of action alleges malicious prosecution
against all defendants for initiating and continuing criminal
proceedings against plaintiff.
9. The ninth cause of action alleges false imprisonment against
all defendants, “particularly Montes, Doe #1, and Doe #2,”
confined and restrained plaintiff, specifically kidnapping
him on November 20, 2022.
10. The tenth cause of action alleges intentional infliction
of emotional distress against all defendants.
11. The eleventh cause of action seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief against the State of Florida, Pinder-
Rodriguez, Worrell, Russell, Walker, Calderon, and the
Florida Department of Corrections. Plaintiff seeks a
declaration that the Florida Vexatious Litigant Law, Fla.
Stat. § 68.093, is unconstitutional as applied and that the
7-year adverse possession statutes, Fla. Stat. § 95.16, §
95.18, are unconstitutional as applied to homestead
claimants.
12. The twelfth cause of action seeks a declaratory judgment
that allowing conflicted judges to resolve motions for their
own disqualification is unconstitutional. This cause of
action is brought against the State of Florida, Pinder-
Rodriguez, Navarro, Calderon, Blechman, Walker. Plaintiff
also alleges that the use of summary judgment hinders is right
to a jury trial.
B. Service of Process
Many of the defendants indicate that they were not served
with a copy of the Summons with the Complaint and the served
version contains additional causes of action that are not in the
filed version. The docket reflects that Summonses were issued on
January 26, 2026, approximately two months after the Complaint was
filed. (Doc. #28.)
“A summons must be served with a copy of the complaint. The
plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint
served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the
necessary copies to the person who makes service.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(c)(1). Defendants seek a dismissal for the improper service
of process. The motions will be granted without prejudice.
Turner v. United States, 203 F. App'x 952, 954 (11th Cir. 2006)
(dismissal without prejudice warranted as no evidence of
willfulness).
C. Failure to State a Claim
Several of the motions to dismiss provide this helpful summary
of plaintiff’s Verified Complaint (Doc. #1):
Plaintiff initiated this action against
approximately 120 different Defendants, many
of whom (a) are members of the judiciary
and/or members of the Florida Bar, law firms,
law enforcement officers or agencies,
municipalities, or agencies thereof, and whom
in many cases (b) have no relationships
between them; and (c) have never communicated
with each other concerning the spurious
allegations that are the subject of this
litigation. More specifically, Plaintiff
filed herein a 12-count, 540-paragraph, 212-
page Complaint, naming as defendants what
appears to be every person, entity, agency,
state, city, and government (including the
United States of America) that have ever had
any fleeting involvement in his life for the
past eighteen (18) years. Each count of the
Complaint alleges similar atrocities under
varying purported theories such as RICO,
FDUTPA, civil rights violations, malicious
prosecution, intentional infliction of
emotional distress and others.
(Doc. #50, pp. 4-5; Doc. #51, p. 5; Doc. #69, p. 5.) A significant
issue that prevents the case from moving forward is that the
Complaint is a shotgun pleading and must be dismissed.
“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.”
Brown v. Columbus Police Dep’t, No. 23-11896, 2024 WL 3451862, at
*6 (11th Cir. July 18, 2024) (citing Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 f.3d
1321, 1324-25 (11th Cir. 2021)). “A shotgun pleading makes it
virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended
to support which claims for relief.” Id. (citing Jackson v. Bank
of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1356 (11th Cir. 2018)).
“Shotgun pleadings ‘are flatly forbidden by the spirit, if
not the letter, of these rules” because they are “calculated to
confuse the ‘enemy,’ and the court, so that theories for relief
not provided by law and which can prejudice an opponent's case,
especially before the jury, can be masked.’” Barmapov, 986 F.3d
at 1324 (citation omitted). “They waste scarce judicial
resources, ‘inexorably broaden the scope of discovery,’ ‘wreak
havoc on appellate court dockets,’ and ‘undermine the public's
respect for the courts.’” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d
1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). The Eleventh
Circuit has identified four types of shotgun pleadings:
Though the groupings cannot be too finely
drawn, we have identified four rough types or
categories of shotgun pleadings. The most
common type—by a long shot—is a complaint
containing multiple counts where each count
adopts the allegations of 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. The
next most common type, at least as far as our
published opinions on the subject reflect, is
a complaint that does not commit the mortal
sin of re-alleging all preceding counts but is
guilty of the venial sin of being replete with
conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not
obviously connected to any particular cause of
action. The third type of shotgun pleading is
one that commits the sin of not separating
into a different count each cause of action or
claim for relief. Fourth, and finally, 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. The unifying characteristic of all
types of shotgun pleadings is that they fail
to one degree or another, and in one way or
another, to give the defendants adequate
notice of the claims against them and the
grounds upon which each claim rests.
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–
23 (11th Cir. 2015) (internal footnotes omitted).
Plaintiff did not number the causes of action and so he did
not improperly incorporate preceding counts into successive
counts. Plaintiff also has not clumped multiple claims into
single counts. However, as to the remaining types of shotgun
pleadings, plaintiff’s Verified Complaint meets the requirements
for dismissal, albeit without prejudice.
Plaintiff has hundreds of paragraphs of factual allegations
that fail to connect to any particular cause of action. The facts
are essentially a disjointed story of plaintiff’s life over the
last few decades with vague and immaterial facts. Plaintiff also
does not clearly indicate what each defendant was responsible for
in the causes of action. Lumping “all defendants” together
provides no notice to defendants or the Court as to what the claims
are. Plaintiff will be required to file an Amended Complaint if
he wishes to proceed. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to
more succinctly assert his causes of action and to clarify his
facts as they pertain to each named defendant will likely result
in another dismissal.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed as a
shotgun pleading without prejudice to filing an Amended
Complaint within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Opinion. If
no Amended Complaint is filed, the case will be closed
without further notice.
2. Plaintiff’s (renewed) Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Doc. #25) is DENIED as moot.
3. Defendant Christopher Wackes’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #38)
is GRANTED to the extent discussed herein.
4. Defendants Pondview Properties, LLC’s and Rafael Salado’s
Motion to Dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice (Doc.
#50) is GRANTED to the extent discussed herein.
5. Defendants Kathryn Smith Law, PLLC’s and Kathryn Smith’s
Motion to Dismiss and Request for Judicial Notice (Doc.
#51) is DENIED as moot and the Amended Motion (Doc. #69)
is GRANTED to the extent discussed herein.
6. Defendant Heritage Florida Jewish News’ Motion to Dismiss
Complaint and Objection to Misnomer (Doc. #77) is GRANTED
to the extent discussed herein.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 19th day
of March 2026.
AA) Pe,
JGHH E. STEELE
SHNIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies:
Plaintiff
Counsel of Record