Jean-Baptiste v. United States Department of Justice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 24-CV-24646-RAR HAROLD JEAN-BAPTISTE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Lauren F.

Louis’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) [ECF No. 11], on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Petition (“Motion”), [ECF No. 3]. Plaintiff filed the Motion given that “[t]his Court has held that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and [ ] has enjoined him from filing any new pro se document in the Southern District of Florida against the United States, its agencies, or its agencies’ employees alleging that the government conspired to monitor, surveil, or harm Plaintiff, physically or otherwise, without first obtaining the prior written approval of the Magistrate Judge.” Order Referring Motion, [ECF No. 4] at 1 (citing Jean-Baptiste v. United States Dep’t of Just., No. 23- 22531, 2023 WL 9013864, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2023)). After careful review, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends that the Court deny the Motion because “Plaintiff’s allegations are detached from reality, patently without merit, and therefore frivolous.” Report at 4. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report, [ECF No. 12].

When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Because Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report, the Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Louis’s legal and factual findings to which Plaintiff objected. Upon careful review of the record, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Louis’s recommendation.

“A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Battle v. Cent. State Hosp., 898 F.2d 126, 129 (11th Cir. 1990)). “[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are ‘clearly baseless,’ a category encompassing allegations that are ‘fanciful,’ ‘fantastic,’ and ‘delusional.’” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992) (internal citations omitted).

“When a plaintiff’s claims are ‘wholly insubstantial,’ ‘obviously frivolous,’ or ‘obviously without merit,’ the Court lacks jurisdiction to address them.” Jean-Baptiste v. United States Dep’t of Justice, No. 23-02298, 2023 WL 8600569, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2023) (quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 537–38 (1974)).

Plaintiff’s claims are detached from reality and are ultimately frivolous. See Guthrie v. United States Gov’t, No. 12-22193, 2014 WL 12600155, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2014) (noting that claims are frivolous if “the facts underlying the claims do not comport with reality and fail to state a cause of action”). Plaintiff claims that an unnamed “psychopath FBI Agent is actively trying to hurt the Plaintiff’s life and make [his] children fatherless,” and further alleges that the Agent is not human and may be a “child of the Lucifer walking this earth.” Compl., [ECF No. 1] at 6. There is no reason to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Petition, given that the Motion recapitulates arguments of similar incredulity that have been squarely rejected by every court that has heard them. See, e.g., Jean Baptise, 2023 WL 8600569, at *3 (collecting cases).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report, [ECF No. 11], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Petition, [ECF No. 3], is DENIED.

3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

4. Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 14th day of January, 2025.

CSSOL FO A. RUIZ I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 3 of 3