United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Barbara Stone, Plaintiff,

v.

Nelson Mullins Riley & 

Scarborough LLP and others, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-22346-Civ-Scola

Order Dismissing Case

This matter is before the Court on an independent review of the record.

The Court dismisses this case because (1) the Plaintiff has been enjoined from 

making any future filings without first obtaining judicial permission and (2) the 

Complaint is patently frivolous.

1. Background

The Plaintiff Barbara Stone initiated this action on April 3, 2020 against a 

number of Defendants including Florida Governor Ron Desantis, Florida 

Attorney General Ashley Moody, a Miami-Dade County Judge, and a Broward 

County Judge, in the District of South Carolina. The United States District Court 

for the District of South Carolina transferred the case to the Southern District of 

Florida on June 8, 2020. (See ECF No. 20.) 

Stone brings counts for negligence, loss of familial association, wrongful 

death, several racketeering counts, violations of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, § 1983 violations, breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, unjust 

enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, 

malicious prosecution, and more. (See Complaint, ECF No. 1.) Stone’s rambling 

96-page Complaint is titled as follows:

THIS UNPRECEDENTED CASE IS THE SINGLEMOST URGENT AND IMPORTANT

MATTER IN AMERICA AND AN URGENT WAKE-UP CALL TO

AN ORGANIZED RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE WHERE

PROBATE COURT JUDGES, ATTORNEYS, AND GUARDIANS

ARE RULING COMPETENT SENIOR CITIZENS INCAPACITATED TO

STRIP THEM OF THEIR CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS

SO THEY CAN’T FIGHT BACK; 

THEN STEALING THEIR ENTIRE ESTATES:

LIFE SAVINGS; GENERATION OF ASSETS; 401KS; SOCIAL SECURITY;

PENSION FUNDS; JEWELRY; ART; CARS; HOMES; INVESTMENTS

AND ONCE THEIR ASSETS ARE EMBEZZELED AND STOLEN,

Case 1:20-cv-22346-RNS Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 4
THESE VULNERABLE ADULTS

ARE PUT ON HIGH DOSES OF TOXIC PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION

TO CAUSE THEIR SUDDEN CARDIAC DEATH

THIS IS A PANDEMIC CRISES, A NATIONAL DISASTER THAT SURPASSES

CORONA

(Id. at 1.)1 Generally, her Complaint accuses a number of judges, attorneys, and 

others of forming a racketeering enterprise that steals from and eventually 

murders senior citizens, all under the guise of guardianship proceedings. (Id.) 

She calls Florida’s guardianship framework a “murder-for-hire racket” and a 

“Nazi-derived enterprise.” (Id. at 26, 28.) Stone filed an Amended Complaint,

which is clearly intended as a supplement to the original Complaint. The 

Amended Complaint explains that “[t]he Complaint is amended to add Shiva 

Hodges”2 and only details her claims against Judge Shiva Hodges—without 

restating any of the allegations in her original Complaint. (ECF No. 11.)

On June 25, 2020, United States District Court Judge Joan A. Lenard 

found the Plaintiff Barbara Stone to be a vexatious litigant and enjoined her from 

making future filings without first obtaining judicial permission. Roy R. Lustig v. 

Barbara Stone, Case No. 15-cv-20150, ECF No. 228 (S.D. Fla. June 25, 2020).

Her order sets out eighteen separate federal cases “in which Stone has, in some 

way, challenged her mother’s guardianship proceedings and/or disparaged Roy 

Lustig,” an attorney involved in her mother’s guardianship proceedings. Id. at 

21-38 (discussing each of the eighteen cases). Notably, in one of those cases, this 

Court described Stone’s claims as “fantastical and delusional” and sua sponte 

dismissed the Complaint as frivolous, duplicative, and for failing to state a claim. 

Stone v. Scott, Case No. 14-23318 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2014) (Scola, J.).

2. Legal Standard

Stone is a pro se litigant. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), “the court shall 

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that. . . the action . . . (i) is 

frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or 

seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2006). Moreover, “a district court has the inherent authority 

to dismiss a patently frivolous complaint.” Cuyler v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 

 1 The typeface is bold and capitalized in the Complaint.

2 United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges is a magistrate judge 

in the District of South Carolina. Judge Hodges issued a report and 

recommendation, recommending that the case be transferred to the Southern 

District of Florida. After she issued the R&R, Stone amended her Complaint to 

add Judge Hodges as a Defendant in this case, alleging that she is part of the 

conspiracy.

Case 1:20-cv-22346-RNS Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 4
2012 WL 10488184, at *2 (11th Cir. Dec. 3, 2012). “A complaint is frivolous 

where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Guthrie v. U.S. 

Government, No. 17-80390, 2017 WL 5479877, at *2 (S.D. Fla. March 31, 2017) 

(Middlebrooks, J.) (citations and quotations omitted).

Pro se complaints are held to “‘less stringent standards than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers’ and can only be dismissed for failure to state a 

claim if it appears ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 

U.S. 97, 106 (1979) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972)). 

However, “the leniency afforded pro se litigants does not give courts license to 

serve as de facto counsel or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to 

sustain an action.” Shuler v. Ingram & Associates, 441 F. App’x 712, 721 (11th 

Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Furthermore, pro se litigants must still follow a 

court’s procedural rules. See Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 

2002). 

3. Discussion

The Court dismisses Stone’s case for two independent reasons. First, 

Judge Lenard enjoined Stone from making future filings without permission of 

the Court, and this Court declines to give its permission to allow Stone to make 

future filings in this case. Judge Lenard directed Stone to file her order in every 

pending federal case, “so that those Courts may decide whether they wish to 

enforce the injunction.”3 Case No. 15-cv-20150, ECF No. 228 at 53-54. In other 

words, Stone cannot make any future filings in this case without the Court’s 

permission. According to her injunction, “[g]rounds for denying Stone leave to 

make a proposed filing include, but are not limited to, filings that are deemed to 

be repetitive, duplicative, vexatious, incoherent, harassing, scandalous, and/or 

pertaining to issues already decided by the Court.” Id. at 52. All of those grounds 

pertain to the Complaint in this case. Therefore, the Court does not grant Stone 

permission to continue to make filings in this matter and litigate this case. See 

Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384, 1388 (11th Cir. 1993) (“dismissal of a 

complaint with prejudice is an appropriate means to enforce violations of such 

injunctions.”).

Second, Stone’s Complaint is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). According to the United States Supreme Court, a complaint is 

frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 

 3 Stone was given 30 days to file Judge Lenard’s injunction in this case.

Nothing in this Order prevents Stone from complying with Judge Lenard’s order, 

and she may file Judge Lenard’s order in this case as required.

Case 1:20-cv-22346-RNS Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 4
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (discussing dismissals under former section 1915(d), 

which contained the same language as current section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)). A court 

may dismiss claims under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) where the claims rest on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or are comprised of factual contentions that 

are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. Claims detailing fantastic or delusional scenarios 

fit into the factually baseless category. Id. at 327-28.

Here, her allegations that politicians, judges, and lawyers are conspiring 

to steal from and murder senior citizens and disabled citizens through Florida’s 

guardianship proceedings are fantastic and delusional. Moreover, her allegations 

are similar to previous allegations from her prior suits alleging misconduct 

against judges and politicians that were dismissed sua sponte. See, e.g., Stone 

v. Hertz, Case No. 14-cv-21776 (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2014) (Williams, J.) (challenges

the guardship proceedings, accuses all of those involved of wrongdoing, and 

compares her mother’s guardianship to the Holocaust); Stone v. Scott, Case No. 

14-cv-23318 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2014) (Scola, J.) (Stone claims the Defendants 

conspired against her and her mother in violation of their civil rights, and the 

Plaintiff also claims that a federal statute prohibiting genocide was violated); 

Stone v. Brennan, Case No. 15-cv-20810 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2015) (Altonaga, J.)

(the Plaintiff claims that an assistant state attorney and judge obstructed justice 

and engaged in other misconduct, and the Plaintiff again sues under the federal 

statute prohibiting genocide). Even under the less stringent standard applied to 

pro se litigants, her Complaint must be dismissed because the factual allegations 

therein are clearly baseless.

As a result, this case is dismissed. The Court directs the Clerk to 

administratively close this case and to mail this order to the address listed 

below. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

Done and ordered, in chambers, at Miami, Florida on June 25, 2020.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Copies to:

Barbara Stone

19 West Flagler Street Apt. 404

Miami, FL 33130

Case 1:20-cv-22346-RNS Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 4 of 4