[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22

- 13943

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________

MONISHA F. MOORE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus JASPER CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, WALKER WILSON, in his individual capacity, TERESA SHERER, in her individual capacity, MARY BETH BARBER, in her individual capacity, SCOTT THORNLEY, in his individual capacity, et al., USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 1 of 92 Opinion of the Court 22

- 13943

Defendants

- Appellees.

___________ _________ Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 6:22

- cv

- 01269

- ACA

____________________

Before W ILSON , L UCK , and H ULL , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Monisha Moore, represented by counsel during all proceedings, appeals the district court’s order sua sponte dismissing with prejudice her amended complaint as a shotgun pleading

. After review, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND On September 30, 2022, Moore filed an initial 2 8

- page complaint with 67 allegations against 10 defendants

. Moore alleg ed that the defendants discriminated against her because of her race and age in violation of her constitutional and federal statutory rights

. On October 6, 2022, the district court sua sponte struck Moore’s complaint as a shotgun pleading. The district court found
that her complaint was a shotgun pleading because (1) each count incorporated by reference all the previous allegations

, and USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 2 of 922

- 13943 Opinion of the Court 3

(2) certain allegations and counts failed to give the court or the defendants adequate notice of the claims

. The district court allowed Moore to file an amended complaint. The district court explained that (1) her amended complaint must contain a separate count for each claim that

contain ed a factua l basis for that claim only

, and (2) each cou n t’s heading had to identify the specific defendant or defendants against whom the claim was asserted, and the statute or law under which
the claim was brought. Lastly , the district court warned Moore
that if h er amended complaint was also a shotgun pleading, the
district court would dismiss it “ with prejudice without further

notice. ”
On October 21, 2022, Moore filed a 25

- page amended complaint with 111 allegations and five substantive counts against the same 1 0 defendants

. 1
On October 31, 2022, the district court dismissed Moore’s amended complaint with prejudice on shotgun pleading grounds. First, the district court found that all her counts continued to improperly incorporate by reference every previous all egation contained in the amended complaint.

Second, the district court concluded that the headings and allegations in counts 2, 3, and 4 were “inconsistent and ma [d] e it difficult

— if not impossible

— for the defendants to determine

1 The amended complaint lists six counts, but count 1 is titled “FACTS” and does not assert a claim for relief. USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 3 of 94 Opinion of the Court 22

- 13943

which and how many of them [were] subject to the claims asserted
in those counts

. ”
Third, the district court noted that c ount 5 attempt ed to assert claims against the individual school board defendants in both their individual and official capacities , but the amended complaint’s caption and party allegations stated that they were named only in their individual capacities. So the district court
concluded that the defendants did not have fair n otice of the nature of the claims asserted against them.

Fourth, the district court found that count 6’s reference to “Defendants” generally did not specify which acts or omissions
were attributable to which defendant.

The district court noted that it alre ady gave Moore

— who was represented by counsel

— notice of the defects in the original complaint and specific instructions on how to cure those defects. The district court found “Moore made no meaningful effort to correct the deficiencies,” so dismissal with prejudice was appropriate. Moore appealed. 2

2 The defendants had not been served at the time of the dismissal, so they did not participate in this appeal. USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 4 of 922

- 13943 Opinion of the Court 5

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review a dismissal on shotgun pleading grounds for an
abuse of discretion. Barmapov v. Amuial , 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021).

III. DISCUSSION On appeal, Moore argues that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing her amended complaint with prejudic e because (1) her amended complaint was not a shotgun pleading
and (2) she should be allowed to amend her amended complaint
because there is no prejudice to the defendants since they have not
been served yet

. Below, we review our relevant law on shotgun pleadings and then explain why the district court did not abuse its
discretion.

A. General Rules on Shotgun Pleadings
A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or 10(b), or both. Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off. , 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015).
Rule 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 10(b) requires a party to “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). Rule 10(b) also mandates that “each claim founded on a separate transaction or

occurrence

. . . be stated in a separate count” if doing so would promote clarity. Id. USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 5 of 96 Opinion of the Court 22

- 13943

“The self

- evident purpose of these rules is to require the pleader to present his claims discretely and s uccinctly, so that his adversary can discern what he is claiming and frame a responsive pleading.” Barmapov , 986 F.3d at 1324 (cleaned up). In other words, “shotgun pleadings are flatly forbidden by the spirit, if not the letter, of these rules because t hey are calculated to confuse the enemy and the court.” Id. (cleaned up). Accordingly, we have “little tolerance” for shotgun pleadings. Id. (quotation marks omitted).
“[W]e have identified four rough types or categories of shotgun pleadings”: (1) “a c omplaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint”; (2) a complaint that is “reple te with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action”; (3) a complaint that does not separate “each cause of action or claim for relief” into a different count; and (4) a complaint that “assert[s] multip le claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is brought against.” Weiland , 792 F.3d at 1321

– 23. A district court must give a plaintiff one opportunity to remedy her shotgun pleading before dismissing her action. Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets , 878 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2018). But i f

s he files an amended complaint without substantially fixing the USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 6 of 922

- 13943 Opinion of the Court 7

deficiencies, dismissal with prejudice is warranted. See Jackson v. Bank of Am. , N.A. , 898 F.3d 1348, 1358

– 59 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining that “[t]he [d] istrict [c] ourt should have dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice” where “the [plaintiffs] filed an amended complaint afflicted with the same defects, attempting halfheartedly to cure only one of the pleading’s many ailments by naming which counts pertained to each [d] efendant”).

B. No A buse of Discretion

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Moore’s amended complaint with prejudice

. When the district court struck Moore’s initial complaint on shotgun pleading grounds , it (1) allowed Moore to file an amended compla int

, (2) explicitly told her how to cure the pleading deficiencies , and (3) warned her that failure to fix the issues would result in dismissal of the amended complaint “with prejudice without further

notice

. ” Despite these instructions and warning , Moore filed an amended complaint without substantially remedying the pleading

issues

. Moore’s amended complaint was a quintessential shotgun pleading for two reasons. First, each count incorporated by reference the allegations of its predecessor counts, “lead ing to a situation where most of the counts (i.e., all but the first) contain[ed] irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions.” Strategic Income Fund, LLC v. Spear, Leeds & Kello Corp. , 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002). USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 7 of 98 Opinion of the Court 22

- 13943

Second, the headings and allegations indiscriminately referred to singular and plural defendants, making it difficult to ascertain which defendant or defendants were responsible for each

act or omission

. In count 3, for example, the heading lists only
def endant Jasper City Board of Education, but the allegations
beneath that heading refer to “Defendant City of Jasper Board of Education[] and the individual defendants,” “Defendant Rigsby,”
and “Defendants.”

In short, t he district court did not abuse its dis cretion in dismissing her amended complaint with prejudice because (1) it provided Moore with fair notice of the defects in her original complaint and a meaningful opportunity to fix them, yet (2) Moore, who was represented by counsel, failed to remedy the defects, and her amended complaint remained a shotgun pleading

. See Barmapov , 986 F.3d at 1326 (“Barmapov was represented by counsel, the district court dismissed his first amended complaint after explaining why it was a shotgun pleading, and the court g ave him a chance to try again. Barmapov squandered that opportunity by filing another shotgun pleading. Under this circumstance, we
have no doubt that the district court did not abuse its discretion” in dismissing with prejudice.); Jackson , 898 F.3d at 1 358 (“[T]he key is whether the plaintiff had fair notice of the defects and a meaningful chance to fix them. If that chance is afforded and the plaintiff fails to remedy the defects, the district court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice on shotgun pleading grounds.”). USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 8 of 922

- 13943 Opinion of the Court 9

Further , t he district court was not required to give Moore any additional opportunities to remedy her pleading violations. See Automotive Alignment & Body Serv., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

, 953 F.3d 7 07, 732 (11th Cir. 2020) (“[A] district court is required to give a counseled plaintiff only one chance to replead before dismissing a complaint with prejudice on shotgun

- pleading grounds[.]”); Vibe Micro , 878 F.3d at 1296 (explaining that “the
district co urt was not required to sua sponte give [the plaintiff] any additional chances to remedy” the shotgun pleading issues where it had already given him a chance to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies and “provided him with a veritable instruction

man ual on how to do so”).

C. Less Severe Sanctions Argument Moore also argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider less severe sanctions. Moore cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes a court to dismiss a pa rty’s complaint for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order, and cases explaining that a dismissal under Rule 41(b) is an extreme sanction that may be imposed only when, inter alia

, the district court specifically finds that lesser sanctions would not suffice. That law is inapplicable here because the district court dismissed Moore’s amended complaint on shotgun pleading grounds, not because she failed to prosecute her case or failed to comply with a district court order.

AFFIRMED. USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 9 of 9