Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOHN B. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv309-SPM/WCS

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, 

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, pro se, has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. Doc. 27. Plaintiff's

notice states that under FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1) he is entitled to dismiss this action

without prejudice and without a court order. Doc. 27. Plaintiff has correctly cited to the

rule, and because the Defendant has not filed an answer or motion for summary

judgment, Plaintiff is entitled to automatically dismiss this case. 

Judicial notice is taken, however, this is not the first case Plaintiff has initiated

against the Florida Supreme Court. Judicial notice is further taken that this case is

related to and includes the same claim Plaintiff brought in his prior case. 

On August 18, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Florida Supreme Court

in case 4:09cv317-RH/AK. Plaintiff employed the same tactic he has used now; after
Page 2 of 3

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, doc. 7, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal

without prejudice. Doc. 18. Magistrate Judge Allan Kornblum accepted the notice, and

the case was dismissed without prejudice on December 28, 2009. Doc. 21. Plaintiff's

49-page complaint in that case brought allegations concerning, among other things, the

fact that the Florida Supreme Court entered a show cause order direct Plaintiff to

demonstrate why he should not be sanctioned and be banned from filing further

pleadings on his own behalf. Doc. 1, p. 17, case 4:09cv317. The Court entered the

sanction over Plaintiff's response, doc. 18, and Plaintiff brought suit here in this Court

alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to petition the Government for redress

of his grievances, a violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due

process, and a violation of two provisions of the Florida Constitution. Doc. 1, pp. 25-26. 

It is clear that case concerned Plaintiff's challenge to self-representation, the same

challenge he brings in this case. See docs. 1, 25. In Plaintiff's recent notice, he clearly

identifies the substance of this case; Plaintiff is seeking "declaratory relief as to his

constitutional right to file pleadings in the Florida Supreme Court, pro se. Doc. 25, p. 2. 

Accordingly, under Rule 41(a)(1), Plaintiff is correct that he is entitled to

voluntarily dismiss his case at this time. However, Plaintiff is incorrect that he may do

so without prejudice. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), "if the plaintiff previously dismissed any

federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal

operates as an adjudication on the merits." Plaintiff's notice is accepted in part. This

case will be dismissed upon Plaintiff's notice, doc. 27, but dismissal is with prejudice as

this is a successive case as explained above.

Case No. 4:10cv309-SPM/WCS
Page 3 of 3

RECOMMENDATION

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's notice

of voluntary dismissal, doc. 27, be ACCEPTED in part, and Plaintiff be permitted to

automatically dismiss this action. Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff's

dismissal is with prejudice as Plaintiff has previously brought a case challenging his

inability to appear pro se before the Florida Supreme Court and he previously voluntarily

dismissed that case as well.1

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on September 30, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

 1 Should Plaintiff attempt to refile this action again, Plaintiff's attention is directed to

FED. R. CIV. P. 41(d) which may require Plaintiff to "pay all or part of the costs of" this

case.

Case No. 4:10cv309-SPM/WCS