JEAN-BAPTISTE

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CASE

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs pro se Motion for Leave to File this case [D.E. 3], given that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED, and this case is dismissed.

I. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff alleges that, essentially, the FBI orchestrated multiple attempts on Plaintiff's life. The FBI purportedly organized a date night for Plaintiff, and instructed the waitress at the restaurant to poison Plaintiffs water. When Plaintiff thwarted that attempt, the FBI Agent then had Plaintiffs date attempt to “make out" with Plaintiff in a dark alley. [D.E. 1 at 6]. Plaintiff, who once again foiled that plan, was confident that the FBI Agent was waiting in that dark alley to "kidnap and end the Plaintiff's life." [Id.]. Throughout the Complaint, Plaintiff also details several past assassination attempts that the FBI sought to execute against him.

"A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Bilal [fn 1]

“[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)).

Here, the Court obviously possesses a set of fanciful and frivolous allegations that have no grounding in reality. These allegations are not only frivolous on their face, but fit squarely into a pattern of past, frivolous cases that Plaintiff has sought to file. For example, in 2024 (1:24-cv-24646-Ruiz), Plaintiff sought leave to file a complaint in which he also alleged that the FBI and the Department of Justice attempted to assassinate him. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that the FBI induced him into purchasing certain toxic items from a Publix, and that they monitored him while he traversed through the supermarket. The Court concluded, having recognized Plaintiff's status as a serial filer, that Plaintiffs proposed complaint was “the most recent iteration of a pattern of frivolous and fantastical claims asserted in Federal Courts around the country.” Jean-Baptiste v. United States Dep't of Justice, 1:24-cv- 24646-Ruiz, ECF No. 14 at 3 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2025) (collecting Plaintiffs frivolous cases).

This case, clearly, has no material differences from those that (1) courts have already dismissed, and (2) earned Plaintiff his status as a vexatious litigant. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to file his complaint is denied, and this litigation is dismissed with prejudice. See Jean-Baptiste, 1:24-cv-24646, D.E. 14 at 2 (citing Jean-Baptiste v. United States Dep't of Justice, No. 23-02298, 2023 WL 8600569, at *2 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2023)) (dismissing Plaintiffs case with prejudice because "[t]here is no reason to grant Plaintiffs 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”).

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs Motion [D.E. 2] is DENIED. This case is dismissed with prejudice, and Plaintiffs other pending motions [D.E. 4, 5, 6] are DENIED as moot.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 5th day of August, 2025.

/s/ Edwin G. Torres

EDWIN G. TORRES

United States Magistrate Judge

[fn 1]: v. Driver, 251 F. 3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Battle v. Cent. State Hosp., 898 F. 2d 126, 129 (11th Cir. 1990)).