[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 9
2 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 WILSON, LUCK, and HULL, 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 28-page 

complaint with 67 allegations against 10 defendants. Moore

alleged 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 9
22-13943 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 

contained a factual basis for that claim only, and (2) each count’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 her 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 10 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 allegation 

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 9
4 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 count 5 attempted 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 notice 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 already 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 9
22-13943 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 prejudice 

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 9
6 Opinion of the Court 22-13943

“The self-evident purpose of these rules is to require the 

pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly, 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 they 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 complaint 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 “replete 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] multiple 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 if 

she files an amended complaint without substantially fixing the 

USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 6 of 9
22-13943 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 Abuse 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 complaint, 

(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, “leading 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 9
8 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 

defendant 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, the district court did not abuse its discretion 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 gave 

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 1358 (“[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 9
22-13943 Opinion of the Court 9

Further, the 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 707, 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 court 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 

manual 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 party’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