United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

Carlos Antonio Montgomery, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Florida Family Court Services, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 20-22303 -Civ-Scola 

Order Striking Complaint 

Plaintiff Carlos Antonio Montgomery sues Defendant Florida Family 

Court Services asserting, it appears, claims under the Fair Credit Reporting 

Act, violations of his constitutional rights, and various common-law claims. 

(Compl., ECF No. 1.) Montgomery initially filed this case in the United States 

District Court in the Eastern District of Kentucky which has since transferred 

it to this Court, in the interests of justice. (Order, ECF No. 6.) Because of 

various discrepancies and what appeared to be access to discretionary funds, 

the Court ordered Montgomery to explain why the Court should nonetheless 

permit him to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court directed Montgomery to 

address all the Court’s concerns and also ordered him to present any new facts 

“in affidavit form, under penalty of perjury.” (Order, ECF No. 9.) Although 

Montgomery timely responded, he failed to set forth the new facts he has 

supplied under penalty of perjury. Instead, on the last page of his response, 

there is simply a notary’s stamp and signature, indicating only that the 

document was signed before a notary. (ECF No. 11, 3.) Once Montgomery 

resubmits his response, with the new facts attested to under penalty of perjury, 

the Court will grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Assuming 

Montgomery’s compliance with the requirements of proceeding in forma 

pauperis, the Court, upon review, nonetheless strikes his complaint (ECF No. 

1) for the reasons set forth below. 

Montgomery’s complaint appears to relate to grievances he has regarding 

a child-support order involving Florida Family Court Services. The legal and 

factual bases for Montgomery’s complaint, however, are not at all clear. Among 

the legal issues Montgomery appears to raise are the following: fraud, violations 

of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, § 1983 violations, negligent and intentional 

infliction of emotional distress, slander, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, 

and conspiracy. As a result of his claims against Florida Family Court Services, 

Montgomery seeks $200,000 in damages as well as declaratory and injunctive 

Case 1:20-cv-22303-RNS Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 1 of 4
relief. Montgomery’s complaint expounds, at great length, on these various 

legal concepts but fails to supply any facts supporting his claims. His 

complaint is also disorganized and meandering, with its plot impossible to 

discern. The result is that Montgomery’s allegations amount to nothing more 

than generalized legal conclusions that are untethered from an actual cause of 

action or an understandable set of facts. It is also impossible for the Court to 

parse which allegations are relevant to any possible claim. 

 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 

a complaint to include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Further, “[a] party must state its claims or 

defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single 

set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Complaints that fail to comply with 

these rules are often referred to as “shotgun pleadings.” Weiland v. Palm Beach 

Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). 

 Montgomery’s pleading here is an unacceptable shotgun pleading for 

several reasons. First, Montgomery fails to set forth facts to support any of his 

claims. And, to the extent there may be facts alleged, there is no way of 

knowing how or why those facts support any of Montgomery’s claims. Second, 

the vast majority of Montgomery’s complaint is composed of disconnected and 

difficult to parse, rambling legal conclusions, the support for which is unclear. 

Third, all Montgomery’s claims, whatever they are, appear to be bunched into 

one giant count. Because of these deficiencies, the Court is unable to discern 

whether Montgomery has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

 To the extent Montgomery believes he can fix these deficiencies, he may 

file an amended complaint. In doing so, Montgomery must (1) address all the 

shortcomings noted in this order; (2) comply with the pleading requirements in 

Rules 8(a) and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (3) include a 

separate factual background section setting forth specific factual allegations in 

support of his claims; (4) if there is more than one cause of action, separate 

each into a different, sequentially numbered, count which identifies the 

relevant cause of action or claim for relief; and (6) identify which factual 

allegations and acts pertain to which count. 

 Additionally, Montgomery is forewarned that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 

confers discretion on a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis action if 

certain defects are evident from the complaint: 

Notwithstanding any filing fees, or any portion thereof, that may 

have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the 

court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or 

malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; 

Case 1:20-cv-22303-RNS Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 2 of 4
or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. 

The same standard as a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) governs a dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(ii). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 

1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is 

appropriate when the facts as pleaded do not state a claim for relief that is 

“plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 

Additionally, § 1915 requires dismissal when the legal theories advanced are 

“indisputably meritless,” Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); when 

the claims rely on factual allegations which are “clearly baseless,” Denton v. 

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992); or, when it appears that the plaintiff has 

little or no chance of success, Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 

2001). 

At the same time, the Court notes Montgomery is a pro se litigant. Pro se 

complaints are held to “‘less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted 

by lawyers’ and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears 

‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim 

which would entitle him to relief.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1979) 

(quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972)). When determining 

whether to dismiss, the allegations of a complaint and its attachments are 

taken as true and are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 

Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008). 

 For the reasons set forth above, the Court strikes Montgomery’s 

complaint (ECF No. 1). Montgomery may file an amended complaint by July 2, 

2020, provided it complies with this order, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) 

and 10(b), and the standards otherwise described above. Montgomery is 

forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in the 

dismissal of his case. By this same date, Montgomery must also resubmit the 

additional facts supporting his application to proceed in forma pauperis under 

penalty of perjury. 

 In the meantime, while there is no operative pleading, the Court directs 

the Clerk to administratively close this case. Upon Montgomery’s compliance 

with the above, the Court will reopen his case. If Montgomery fails to timely or 

adequately comply with this order, the Court may dismiss his complaint. 

 The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Montgomery at the 

Case 1:20-cv-22303-RNS Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 3 of 4
address indicated below. 

Done and ordered, in chambers at Miami, Florida, on June 18, 2020. 

 _______________________________ 

 Robert N. Scola, Jr. 

 United States District Judge 

Copy via U.S. mail to: 

Carlos Antonio Montgomery 

PO Box 135 

Wellington, KY 40387 

Case 1:20-cv-22303-RNS Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2020 Page 4 of 4