Case Information
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION
CONNIE FRANCES WHIGUM,
Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 3:25cv476/TKW/ZCB PAM BONDI, et al.,
Defendants.
/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint and paying the filing fee. (Docs. 1, 3). She has since filed a nonsensical amended complaint that names as Defendants various past and present political figures, such as Donald J. Trump, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, J.D. Vance, Kamala Harris, Mike Pence, Pam Bondi, John Ashcroft, George W. Bush, and King Charles. (Doc. 5). Having reviewed the amended complaint, it is clear that this case is frivolous and should be dismissed.
Plaintiff is a frequent litigator with a history of abusing the judicial process. She has filed six previous cases in the Northern District of Florida, all of which were dismissed. [1] In the last case Plaintiff filed, the judge instructed the Clerk not to docket any lawsuit initiated by Plaintiff until there was a judicial review of the complaint. See Whigum v. USA , Case No. 3:15cv382/MCR/EMT (Doc. 4) (“The Clerk will not file any lawsuit initiated by Plaintiff but shall forward such lawsuit for judicial review and determination of whether the lawsuit involves the same facts, issues or allegations as the previous cases identified above.”). Although the current case was not barred by the previous filing injunction, it nonetheless should be dismissed as frivolous.
“[A] district court has the inherent power to dismiss an action that is so patently lacking in merit as to be frivolous.” Guthrie v. U.S. Gov’t , 618 F. App’x 612, 617 (11th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). “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).
Here, Plaintiff claims—among other things—that her grandfather was Thomas Jefferson (Doc. 5 at 4), her grandmother had a relationship with Julius Caesar ( id. at 5), and her great grandfather was Abraham Lincoln ( id. at 6). These are just some of the “fantastic,” “delusional,” and “incredible” facts included throughout the amended complaint. Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992). Although difficult to decipher, it appears Plaintiff alleges a government conspiracy theory involving top officials from the United States and the United Kingdom, Florida state court judges, the Social Security Administration, and others. (Doc. 5 at 10-11). The allegations have no arguable basis in either fact or law. See Russ v. Williams , No. 5:14CV164, 2014 WL 7404060, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2014) (dismissing complaint as frivolous because the claims were “essentially rooted in [the plaintiff’s] belief that federal agencies are secretly engaged in a conspiratorial vendetta against him whereby every otherwise legitimate action taken by any agency . . . is seen through the lens of this overarching conspiracy that Plaintiff believes exists”); Young v. Bush , No. CV 19-01102, 2021 WL 499043, at *4 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 12, 2021) (dismissing as frivolous complaint because it was “premised on baseless accusations and far-fetched conspiracy plots”).
Plaintiff’s frivolous complaint cannot be cured by filing an amended complaint. See Nezbeda v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Corp. , 789 F. App’x 180, 183 (11th Cir. 2019) (permitting dismissal sua sponte and without leave to amend if the complaint is frivolous).
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that: 1. Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED as frivolous; and 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 17th day of April 2025.
/ s / Zachary C. Bolitho Zachary C. Bolitho United States Magistrate Judge Notice to the Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen 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 the objections on 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 unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
[1] Case No. 3:10cv442/MCR/MD (N.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2010) (dismissing because this Court lacked jurisdiction to review the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of a writ of certiorari and because a private citizen cannot initiate a criminal investigation or prosecution); Case No. 3:12cv383/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2012) (dismissing because Plaintiff’s allegations “failed to state a claim with an arguable basis in either law or fact”); Case No. 3:14cv509/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2014) (dismissing because Plaintiff’s complaint was incomprehensible and she could not remove her own action to federal court); Case No. 3:15cv94/MCR/CJK (N.D. Fla. April 15, 2015) (dismissing as malicious for abuse of the judicial process because Plaintiff was attempting to circumvent an order by Judge Rodgers in another case); Case No. 3:15cv256/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. July 14, 2025) (same); Case No. 3:15cv382/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2015) (dismissing as an abuse of the judicial process and instituting a bar on plaintiff’s future filings involving similar issues and defendants).