Connie Frances Whigum v. Attorney General of the United States

── Connie Frances Whigum v. Attorney General of the United States ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 20, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11680 Document: 84-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2026 Page: 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11680 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ CONNIE FRANCES WHIGUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MIKE PENCE, BARACK OBAMA, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:25-cv-00476-TKW-ZCB ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 25-11680 Document: 84-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2026 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11680 PER CURIAM: Connie Frances Whigum, pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous. We affirm. In a complaint and an amended complaint, which are diffi- cult to decipher, Whigum claimed that she was related to various historical figures, like King Tut, Emperor Nero, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln. She alleged discrimination both in historical terms, including that White supremacists took “[a]ll wealth, inher- itance from [her] parents,” and in more personal terms, referencing incarceration, psychiatric commitment, and the denial of jobs, ed- ucation, and disability benefits. She named various political figures as defendants, including members of past and current U.S. presi- dential administrations, and she sought relief for discrimination and “[u]niversal [i]nheritance [c]laims.” A magistrate judge reviewed Whigum’s pleadings and deter- mined in a report and recommendation (“R&R”) that the action should be dismissed as frivolous. The magistrate judge noted that Whigum was a frequent litigator with a history of abusing the ju- dicial process, and that she appeared to allege a far-fetched, over- arching conspiracy with no arguable basis in law or fact. In re- sponse, Whigum filed objections broadly asserting that the district court should not adopt the R&R. She also attached a variety of purportedly supporting documents. The district court agreed with the magistrate judge that the case was “patently frivolous.” The court observed that Whigum’s USCA11 Case: 25-11680 Document: 84-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2026 Page: 3 of 4 25-11680 Opinion of the Court 3 objections and documents, which were “largely comprised of in- comprehensible gibberish,” tended to confirm the frivolous nature of the case. So the court adopted the R&R and dismissed the case. Whigum now appeals. We review a district court’s sua sponte dismissal based on fri- volity for an abuse of discretion. Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008); Pedraza v. United Guar. Corp., 313 F.3d 1323, 1328 (11th Cir. 2002). We have recognized that district courts have the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss frivolous suits, so long as “proper pro- cedures are followed.” Jefferson Fourteenth Assocs. v. Wometco de Puerto Rico, Inc., 695 F.2d 524, 52