United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Sherese Godschild, Plaintiff,

v.

Lauren Turner, Esq. and L. Turner 

Law P.A., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 22-61723-Civ-Scola

Order

The case is before the Court upon an independent review of the record. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff Sherese Godschild’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) but strikes her complaint

(ECF No. 1), with leave to amend.

Godschild’s complaint appears to relate to a dispute with her attorney

and the attorney’s law firm about fees and their representation of her in 

another case. The legal and factual bases for Godschild’s complaint, however, 

are not entirely clear. Among the causes of actions or claims Godschild 

identifies are the following: violations of her right to privacy; false 

representation; breach of contract; discrimination; emotional distress; financial 

distress; violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act; and violations of 

the Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment and other constitutional rights. 

As a result of her claims against Defendants Lauren Turner and L. Turner Law 

P.A., Godschild seeks $8,001 and “a greater amount based on each violation of 

the USC and the Constitution.” (Compl. at 4.) The facts supporting these 

claims are not entirely clear. As best the Court can discern, Godschild’s 

grievances stem from, among other things, the Defendants’ issuing her 

inaccurate invoices; improperly characterizing her attempts to renegotiate the 

parties’ contract as “based in greed”; attempting to collect amounts not due; 

and inappropriately seeking her private banking and financial information. (Id. 

at 4–5.)

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).

Godschild’s pleading here is an unacceptable shotgun pleading for 

several reasons. First, Godschild fails to set forth facts to fully support any of 

her claims. And, to the extent there may be discernable facts alleged, there is 

Case 0:22-cv-61723-RNS Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/06/2023 Page 1 of 3
no way of knowing how or why those facts support any of the several claims

she lists. Second, much of Godchild’s complaint is composed of somewhat 

disconnected and difficult to parse legal conclusions, the support for which is 

unclear. Third, all Godschild’s claims appear to be bunched into one giant 

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

Godschild has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.

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

complaint. Although Godschild 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 Godschild’s grievances against the Defendants all likely arise under 

state law. And, to the extent Godschild seeks to avail herself of the Court’s 

diversity jurisdiction, she has neither alleged the parties’ citizenships nor 

established that the jurisdictional threshold has been met.

Based on both the pleading and jurisdictional-allegation deficiencies, the 

Court strikes Godschild’s complaint. Although “pro se pleadings are held to a 

less strict standard than pleadings filed by lawyers and thus are construed 

liberally,” Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008), “[e]ven a pro 

se litigant is required to comply with the rules of procedure,” LaCroix v. W. Dist. 

of Kentucky, 627 F. App’x 816, 818 (11th Cir. 2015). In its current form, 

Godschild’s complaint fails to supply, in a clear manner, “direct or inferential 

allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery 

under some viable legal theory.” Frazile v. EMC Mortg. Corp., 382 F. App’x 833, 

836 (11th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up).

Accordingly, the Court strikes Godschild’s complaint (ECF No. 1) and 

instructs her to replead her case through an amended complaint, if she 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. Godschild is cautioned to 

plead only facts that are tethered to a viable cause of action against each 

Defendant and to identify which facts relate to which cause of action and which 

Defendants. Further, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b), 

Godschild must state her claims in numbered paragraphs, “each limited as far 

as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). The Court 

also directs Godschild to avoid conclusory or vague allegations, or to at least 

supplement them with fact-based claims, and to make sure that she endeavors 

to separate different causes of actions, to the extent there is more than one, 

into separate, numbered counts.

Godschild must file her amended complaint, compliant with the above 

and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on or before October 19, 2022. 

Case 0:22-cv-61723-RNS Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/06/2023 Page 2 of 3
Godschild is forewarned that if she fails to timely comply with this order, her

complaint will be dismissed, without further leave to amend. 

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

the Clerk to administratively close this case. Any other pending motions are 

denied as moot.

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on January 6, 2023.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 0:22-cv-61723-RNS Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/06/2023 Page 3 of 3