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. 22-61461-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 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.

Case 0:22-cv-61723-RNS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 1 of 2
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. 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 September 28, 2022.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 0:22-cv-61723-RNS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 2 of 2