United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

Levar Curtis Johnson, Plaintiff,

v. 

Bank of New York Mellon and 

Miami-Dade County Sheriff, 

Defendants.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Civil Action No. 22-22925-Civ-Scola 

Order Striking Complaint 

This matter is before the Court upon an independent review of the record. 

Levar Curtis Johnson is suing Defendants Bank of New York Mellon and MiamiDade County Sheriff to quiet title to property he says he owns in Miami, Florida, 

and for claims of slander of title, fraudulent conversion, fraud, fraud in the 

inducement, and insurance fraud. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Because Johnson’s 

complaint amounts to a shotgun pleading and because the Court is unable to 

discern whether it has jurisdiction over this case, the Court strikes Johnson’s 

complaint (ECF No. 1), with leave to amend, but grants his motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis (ECF No. 3). 

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). 

“Courts in the Eleventh Circuit have little tolerance for shotgun pleadings.” 

Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1294-95 (11th Cir. 2018). In 

violating Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b), such pleadings “waste scarce judicial resources, 

inexorably broaden the scope of discovery, wreak havoc on appellate court 

dockets, and undermine the public’s respect for the courts.” Id. (cleaned up). 

When presented with a shotgun pleading, a district court “should strike the 

pleading and instruct counsel to replead the case—if counsel could in good faith 

make the representations required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).” Jackson v. Bank of 

Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1357-58 (11th Cir. 2018) (“This is so even when the 

other party does not move to strike the pleading”). 

Johnson’s single-spaced and narrow-margined, seventeen-page complaint 

contains a dense recitation of Johnson’s understanding of the history and 

development of banking, contract, and property laws and currency, lending, and 

credit systems in the United States. At bottom, though, his complaint focuses on 

Case 1:22-cv-22925-RNS Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 1 of 3
what he says is the Bank’s wrongful foreclosure of real property that he inherited. 

As a result he seeks $5,000 for his fees and costs, $7,000 in punitive and 

compensatory damages, plus declaratory and injunctive relief related to title and 

possession of his home. Ultimately, there is very little structure to the complaint, 

making it impossible to follow, and very few facts relevant to the foreclosure case 

are presented. Further, to the extent Johnson does supply facts, he fails to 

specify which facts or allegations support which causes of action. Further, the 

vast majority of the allegations Johnson sets forth are conclusory, vague, and 

seemingly immaterial—“not obviously connected to any particular cause of 

action.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1322. 

In order to remedy these deficiencies, the Court orders Johnson to file an 

amened complaint. In doing so, Johnson 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) limit his factual background 

sections to only those factual allegations that are common to or supportive of all 

his claims; (4) avoid lumping together multiple causes of action into a single 

count; (5) avoid conclusory or vague allegations; and (6) identify which factual 

allegations and acts pertain to which count. 

Further, the Court is not convinced it has jurisdiction over this complaint. 

Although Johnson recites several federal questions, that could support 

jurisdiction, the Court is unable to satisfy itself that any of those claims is 

properly pleaded or viable against these Defendants. Instead, it appears 

Johnson’s grievances against the Defendants all likely arise under state law. And, 

to the extent Johnson seeks to avail himself of the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, 

he has neither alleged the parties’ citizenships nor established that the 

jurisdictional threshold amount has been met. 

Accordingly, the Court strikes Johnson’s complaint (ECF No. 1) and instructs him

to replead his case through an amended complaint, if he can, in good faith, allege facts 

directly supporting at least one viable claim for relief against the Defendants, or at least 

one of them, as well as facts establishing a basis for the Court’s subject-matter 

jurisdiction. Johnson is cautioned to plead only facts that are tethered to a viable cause 

of action against each Defendant. Further, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 10(b), Johnson must state his claims in numbered paragraphs, “each limited 

as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances,” and to separate different causes of 

action into separate, numbered counts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). 

Johnson must file his amended complaint, compliant with the above and the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on or before October 19, 2022. Johnson is forewarned 

that if he fails to timely comply with this order, his complaint will be dismissed, without 

further leave to amend. Because the Court strikes Johnson’s pleading, the Bank’s motion 

to dismiss is denied as moot (ECF No. 7). In the meantime, while there is no operative 

complaint, the Court directs the Clerk to administratively close this case. Any other 

Case 1:22-cv-22925-RNS Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 2 of 3
pending motions are denied as moot.

Done and ordered, in chambers at Miami, Florida, on September 29, 2022.

_______________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-22925-RNS Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 3 of 3