The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
JOSHUA NESTOR MANCUSO,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 6:26-cv-00990-PGB-LHP
JENNIFER PEREZ-MOLINA, THE
SCHOOL BOARD OF ORANGE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, BRADLEY E.
MARTIN, ERIN K. O'DONNELL,
DENISE J. SANTIAGO, MARY K.
WILLISON, JOUMANA
MOUKADDAM, CYNTHIA Y.
MARTIN, SHERIFF JOHN W.
MINA, ALFREDA KEITH-LYTLE,
DOUGLAS C. MALENFANT,
ALEXIS J. AGOSTO, DOE
DEFENDANT 11; CHALUMEAU
LAW GROUP, LLC, DOE
DEFENDANT 12; BRONTE
TORRES PAGAN, JASON B.
FIESTA, ASHLEY KIMBERLIN
WILSON, DEPUTY
CHRISTOPHER LEVELLE-
COMBS, ALICIA P.
CHALUMEAU, AGOSTO LAW,
P.A., DOES 2-10, DEPUTY G.
AVILES, AND CHRISTINE
BRATEK-COHEN,
Defendants.
ORDER
On May 11, 2026, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against 22
named and unnamed Defendants. Doc. No. 1. Defendants John W. Mina, Deputy
Aviles, Alexis J. Agosto, Esq., Chalumeau Law Group, LLC, Alicia P. Chalumeau,
Christine S. Perera, the School Board of Orange County, Florida, Bradley E. Martin,
Erin K. O’Donnell, Denise J. Santiago, Mary K. Willison, and Cynthia Y. Martin filed
motions to dismiss in response. Doc. Nos. 29, 33, 37, 42, 46.1 These motions have
been referred to the undersigned.
On June 17, 2026, presiding United States District Judge Paul G. Byron
ordered Plaintiff to re-file his complaint to redact the name of a minor child
identified in the pleading. Doc. No. 30. On June 26, 2026, Plaintiff timely re-filed
his complaint. Doc. No. 50. Thereafter, Defendants John W. Mina, Deputy Aviles,
Alexis J. Agosto, Esq., Chalumeau Law Group, LLC, Alicia P. Chalumeau, Christine
S. Perera filed renewed motions to dismiss, which have also been referred to the
undersigned. Doc. Nos. 59-61, 67. Accordingly, the initial motions to dismiss (Doc.
Nos. 29, 33, 37, 42) are DENIED as MOOT. Defendants the School Board of Orange
County, Florida, Bradley E. Martin, Erin K. O’Donnell, Denise J. Santiago, Mary K.
Willison, and Cynthia Y. Martin have not re-filed their motion to dismiss (Doc. No.
1 Defendant Jennifer Perez Molina has filed an answer and counterclaim to the
operative complaint. Doc. No. 56. Defendant Douglas Paul Malefant, Esq. has also filed a
motion to dismiss. Doc. No. 55.
46), however, given that the only change to the complaint is the redaction of the
minor child’s name, the undersigned will treat the motion to dismiss as relating to
the operative pleading (Doc. No. 50).
In addition, on July 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint for
Civil Rights Violations and Civil Rico (Jury Trial demanded). Doc. No. 62. Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), a party may amend its pleading only once
as a matter of course, so long as the amendment is made no later than 21 days after
serving it, or 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or motion, whichever is
earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). In all other cases, a party is not permitted to amend
their complaint without first obtaining either the opposing party’s written consent
or the Court’s leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Here, Plaintiff did not file his amended
complaint until July 10, 2026, after the 21-day period set forth in Rule 15(a) expired,
and without first obtaining leave of Court or submitting proof that Defendants
consented to the amendment.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. No. 62) is hereby
STRICKEN. If Plaintiff wishes to amend, he must do so in compliance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Plaintiff is reminded that pro se litigants are required to
comply with all applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules of this
Court, and Court Orders. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 836 (11th Cir. 1989)
(A pro se litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 863 (1989).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 21, 2026.
ayn □□□□
LESLIE AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
-4-