Opinion
8:21-cv-2080-TPB-CPT
09-24-2021
DANIEL DRAGASH, Plaintiff, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff Daniel Dragash filed a pro se “Verified Complaint” in state court seeking damages against various defendants who include the United States Attorney's Office, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Florida Attorney General, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), and its attorneys. (Doc. 1-1). As with numerous actions and filings by Plaintiff going back more than seven years, the complaint centers on Chase's attempt in 2012 to enforce a mortgage on Plaintiff's property, the filing of a proof of claim in Plaintiff's subsequent bankruptcy, and Plaintiff's alleged subsequent mistreatment by a “cabal” of entities, individuals, government officials, and courts, including this Court, which he describes as a “CORRUPT FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.” Defendants removed the case to this Court and have moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. (Docs. 13; 14).
Plaintiff's history is detailed in this Court's dismissal order in a related case, Dragash v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 8:21-cv-1642-TPB-CPT.
The complaint in this case appears to seek $500,000 in damages and cancellation of a 2002 note and mortgage but consists principally of a disrespectful and non-sensical stream of consciousness rant directed at various individuals involved in prior legal proceedings with Plaintiff. The complaint on its face is “wholly insubstantial, unintelligible and frivolous, ” and leave to amend would be futile. See, e.g., Banks v. Pompeo, No. 2:19-cv-755-FtM-29NPM, 2019 WL 11477403, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2019) (citing Henry v. Fernandez-Rundle, 773 Fed.Appx. 596, 597 (11th Cir. 2019)), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 11478072 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2019); Bey v. McEwen, No. 8:20-cv-4-T-36TGW, 2019 WL 838240 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 836270 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2020) (dismissing complaint against federal judge without leave to amend); McKenna v. Obama, 3:15cv335/MCR/CJK, 2016 WL 5213940, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2016) (“[F]urther processing of what might be loosely described as plaintiff's claims, would result in waste of scarce public resources and would only serve as an incentive to further abuses.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 5110487 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2016). Therefore, and for the reasons set forth in the Court's dismissal order in Dragash v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 8:21-cv-1642, Defendants' respective motions to dismiss are granted and the complaint is dismissed prejudice as to all Defendants.
This Court has declared Plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant, because he has filed multiple proceedings, including this one, that perpetuate litigation on issues already decided and manifestly aim to intimidate and harass, with no objective good faith expectation of prevailing. See Dragash v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 8:21-cv-1642. The Court has therefore enjoined Plaintiff from filing any action, complaint, petition, or other document in the Middle District of Florida without first obtaining leave from the Middle District of Florida or the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and provided specific procedures Plaintiff must follow before any further filings. Id. The Court's vexatious litigant order is equally applicable to filings in this case.
It is therefore
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) "Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice” (Doc. 13) is GRANTED.
(2) “Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and GrayRobinson, P.A.'s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint” (Doc. 14) is GRANTED.
(3) Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, without leave to amend.
(4) The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines
and thereafter close this case.
DONE and ORDERED.