Case Activity (20)

1. Notice | Filed: November 18, 2025 | Entered: November 18, 2025 Lomax v. City of Miami Mayor et al

   Assault Libel & Slander | Florida Southern

   Notice of Compliance

   CLERK'S NOTICE of Compliance re 75 Order: Plaintiff's mailing address was updated. (caw)

2. Order | Filed: November 17, 2025 | Entered: November 17, 2025 Lomax v. City of Miami Mayor et al

   Assault Libel & Slander | Florida Southern

   Order on Motion to Reopen Case Order on Motion to Vacate

   PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) 71 and Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case and Vacate Mandate Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) 72 . This case was reassigned to the undersigned from Judge Patricia A. Seitz. (ECF No. 74). As to the Motion filed at (ECF No. 71), although bearing the case number of this action, on its face it appears to relate to a different case that Plaintiff is bringing in this District against the City of Miami Police Department and Officers Johnnie Mathis and Rossicia Allen, who are not Defendants in this action. Accordingly, the Motion 71 is DENIED. Plaintiff may refile this motion in the correct case. She is further cautioned to carefully review the case caption on her documents and ensure they are filed in the correct case.
   
   As to the Motion filed at (ECF No. 72), which properly pertains to this case, Plaintiff seeks to reopen her previously dismissed case and vacate the Eleventh Circuit's Mandate because the prosecution underlying her claim lacked probable cause and was instead racially motivated, one of the officers involved has since been convicted for drug crimes, the nolle prosequi dismissal of the underlying claims shows that Plaintiff was falsely charged, and the false charge remains on Plaintiff's public record causing emotional distress and reputational harm. Id. at 3. Plaintiff further requests permission to replead her claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and civil rights violations, seeks $5,000 in damages, and attaches what appears to be a proposed amended complaint. Id. at 3; (ECF No. 72-1). Judge Seitz previously denied Plaintiff's attempts to reopen this case following dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim, explaining as to her malicious prosecution and civil rights theories, Plaintiff had failed to "adduce any facts which would deprive the officers of arguable probable cause to arrest her for illegal use of a dairy case." (ECF No. 41) at 1. Upon a de novo review, the Eleventh Circuit specifically found that while the events complained of were "if true, unfortunate, [Plaintiff's] alleged victimization at the hands of the police cannot surmount the officers' qualified immunity defense" due to adequate probable cause. (ECF No. 52) at 2-3. Upon a review of Plaintiff's Motion now, the Court does not find that she has adduced any additional facts that would demonstrate lack of probable cause, rather only asserting one conclusory allegation without evidence that the arrest was racially animated. That one of the arresting officers was later arrested on an unrelated drug charge has no bearing on the conduct related to Plaintiff's case. All other facts discussed by Plaintiff in her Motion were previously considered and rejected by this Court as grounds for reopening. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff has not presented any grounds that would warrant vacating the previous dismissal and reopening this case under Rule 60(b). Accordingly, the Motion 72 is DENIED.
   
   The Court further notes that the address on Plaintiff's envelope containing the filings discussed herein reflects a different address than that which the Court has on file for Plaintiff in this action. The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to update Plaintiff's mailing address based on the address stated on her envelope. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 11/17/2025. (ss01)

3. 18 additional result(s)