Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-61987-RAR

DEVON A. BROWN, 

Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

BROWARD SHERIFFS’ OFFICE, 

MIGUEL NEWELL-MARTINEZ, 

BRENDA D. FORMAN, GREGORY TONY, 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon sua sponte review of a pro se Amended 

Complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Amended Complaint [ECF No. 5] (“Am. Compl.”). 

Pro se Plaintiff, Devon Brown, initially filed his first Complaint, [ECF No. 1] (“First Compl.”), 

on October 24, 2022. After carefully reviewing the First Complaint, this Court issued an Order to 

Amend, [ECF No. 4], on October 27, 2022. The Court concluded that Plaintiff’s First Complaint 

was a shotgun pleading, prohibited by the Eleventh Circuit. Order to Amend at 5. Now, reviewing 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court concludes that it must dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint because it remains a shotgun pleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 

is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), courts are permitted to dismiss a suit “any time [] the 

court determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal ... fails to state a claim on which relief may be 

granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). To state a claim for relief, a pleading must contain: “(1) a short 

Case 0:22-cv-61987-RAR Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 1 of 8
Page 2 of 8

and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . (2) a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” 

FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). Accordingly, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted 

as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “[T]o state a plausible 

claim for relief, the plaintiff[] must plead ‘factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Sinaltrainal v. CocaCola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1268 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

The Court must hold the allegations in a pro se civil rights complaint to a less stringent 

standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21

(1972); Holsomback v. White, 133 F.3d 1382, 1386 (11th Cir. 1998). However, “this leeway is 

not limitless. [The Court] cannot serve as de facto counsel for a party, or ... rewrite an otherwise 

deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Weil v. Phillips, 816 F. App’x 339, 341 (11th Cir. 

2020) (internal citation omitted). And despite the liberal construction afforded to pro se filings, 

the law does not authorize pro se litigants to file impermissible shotgun pleadings. 

The Eleventh Circuit has identified several types of shotgun pleadings. See Weiland v. 

Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). 

“The most common” shotgun pleading is one “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.” Id. at 1321. “The next most 

common type . . . is a complaint that [is]...replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts 

not obviously connected to any particular cause of action.” Id. at 1321–22. “The third type of 

shotgun pleading is one that . . . [does] not separat[e] into a different count each cause of action or 

Case 0:22-cv-61987-RAR Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 2 of 8
Page 3 of 8

claim for relief.” Id. at 1322–1323. Lastly, “there is the relatively rare [shotgun pleading] asserting

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.” 

Id. at 1323. 

“In the special circumstance of non-merits dismissals on shotgun pleading grounds, [the 

Eleventh Circuit has] required district courts to sua sponte allow a litigant one chance to remedy 

such deficiencies.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018). Where 

the amended complaint “remain[s] a shotgun pleading,” it is not an abuse of discretion “to 

dismiss[] it on shotgun pleading grounds.” Id.

ANALYSIS

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he was falsely arrested and imprisoned 

because his arrest was the result of an “unsigned capias,” and when Plaintiff was arrested, he was 

required to remove religious garments. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2. Plaintiff further alleges that 

Defendants did so in accordance with their customs and practices, which violate the United States 

and Florida Constitutions and several Florida statutes. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 7–8. The Complaint 

provides the gist of Plaintiff’s underlying allegations. However, it is impermissibly plead in a 

shotgun manner. See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321-22. 

In its previous Order to Amend, this Court provided Plaintiff an opportunity to rectify his

First Complaint and included instructions on how to do so. Order to Amend at 4–7. Namely, the 

Court required that Plaintiff comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10’s requirement that 

each numbered paragraph be limited to a single set of circumstances, Rule 8’s requirement that 

plaintiffs state their claims in a manner that is “short and plain,” and most importantly, plead 

sufficient factual matter that, accepted as true, would allow the Court to reasonably infer that 

Case 0:22-cv-61987-RAR Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 3 of 8
Page 4 of 8

Defendants are liable for any misconduct or wrongdoing by removing vague and conclusory 

statements and immaterial facts. Id.1

 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to sufficiently correct two of the substantial problems 

previously identified by the Court. Therefore, it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (1) does not plead sufficient factual matter that, accepted 

as true, would allow the Court to reasonably infer that Defendants are liable for any misconduct, 

and (2) fails to adhere to Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To be sure, 

Plaintiff did revise the Amended Complaint to an extent. For example, in the Amended Complaint, 

Plaintiff dropped some of the named Defendants, numbered the paragraphs, and removed some 

extraneous details that were not clearly related to the underlying claims. But these minor revisions 

do not transform the substance of this shotgun pleading into a permissible complaint because the 

Amended Complaint still fails to separate out single sets of circumstances in distinct paragraphs 

in a manner that is short and plain. 

First and most problematic, the enumerated counts in the Amended Complaint are 

conclusory and fail to allege sufficient facts to support a finding that Defendants are liable for any 

misconduct or wrongdoing related to Plaintiff’s arrest. Beginning with allegations arising from an 

“unsigned capias,” Plaintiff brings two counts each against Defendants Deputy Miguel NewellMartinez, County Clerk Brenda D. Foreman, and Sheriff Gregory Tony, and one count against the 

Broward Sheriff’s Office. The following examples demonstrate the conclusory nature of the 

accusations made against Defendants:

1

 Upon its own review, the Court notes that its initial Order to Amend contained scrivener’s errors in the 

Legal Standard section. E.g., Order to Amend at 2 (incorrectly citing to Fed. R. Civ. P. 2). However, the 

Court’s analysis and instructions to Plaintiff were not impacted by these errors and therefore they do not 

preclude the Court’s dismissal without prejudice here. 

Case 0:22-cv-61987-RAR Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 4 of 8
Page 5 of 8

• “The Due process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment had stated that, Officer 

Martinez, as a government actor should have executed a valid Capias which had to be 

signed by a judge in Florida per Florida Statute 901.02, thus rendering it effectuating 

parts of the due process guaranteed to Plaintiff as one of ‘We the People.’ Officer 

Martinez, ignored the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and had

arrested Plaintiff anyhow.” Am. Compl. ¶ 11.

• “The Defendant Brenda D. Foremen, took an oath of Office to protect and defend the 

Constitution and laws of the United States against All Enemies local and foreign. 

Brenda D. Foreman clerk of the courts for Broward county Florida, is been sued for 

allowing her office to issue a defective warrant against the Plaintiff which helped to 

conspire against him being arrested.” Am. Compl. ¶ 12.

• “BSO Sheriff Gregory Tony's failure to supervise his deputies, lead them to arrest 

Plaintiff with an unsigned Capias, while his deputy was enforcing a policy or custom 

‘color of law’ that violated Plaintiff's Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the 

United States Constitution, and also Florida Statute 901.02. This action amounts to a 

false arrest and false imprisonment of Plaintiff.” Am. Compl. ¶ 12.

These examples demonstrate the Amended Complaint’s reliance on conclusory statements without 

any factual support or allegations. This is particularly clear in the allegations against Defendant 

Foreman, the Clerk of Courts in Broward County. Plaintiff alleges no facts supporting his 

allegation that Defendant Foreman “allow[ed] her office to issue a defective warrant” or “conspire 

against him.” Am. Compl. ¶ 12. From these allegations, and others like them throughout the 

Amended Complaint, the Court cannot discern the bases under which Plaintiff believes Defendants 

are liable.

Case 0:22-cv-61987-RAR Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 5 of 8
Page 6 of 8

The Eleventh Circuit has considered similar amended complaints to be “shotgun” in form. 

In Toth v. Antonacci, a pro se incarcerated plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his amended 

complaint as a shotgun pleading. 788 F. App’x 688, 689 (11th Cir. 2019). There, the Eleventh 

Circuit observed, “[a]lthough the amended complaint enumerates the legal rights of which Toth 

was allegedly deprived and which principles each defendant allegedly violated, it does not separate 

his claims by cause of action, draw any clear lines between the legal and factual bases for his 

claims, or set forth the elements of any of his claims.” Id. at 691. 

Here, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is akin to the dismissal the Eleventh Circuit affirmed 

in Toth. Plaintiff, like Toth, enumerates the legal rights of which Plaintiff was allegedly deprived, 

e.g., First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. Like Toth, Plaintiff also identifies 

which principles (or portions of the United States Constitution or Florida law) each Defendant 

allegedly violated. But Plaintiff, like Toth, fails to draw any clear lines between the legal and 

factual bases for his claims or set forth any elements of his claims. For example, as described 

infra, in one sentence Plaintiff alleges (1) a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) a 

requirement to sign an arrest warrant under Florida statute,

2 and (3) factual allegations about an 

Officer’s alleged failure to act upon an appropriate warrant. Am. Compl. ¶ 11. The Court cannot 

decipher the legal and factual bases of these claims. Accordingly, the Court concludes that these 

counts are plead in an impermissible shotgun fashion. 

The same is true for the Amended Complaint’s allegations regarding the First Amendment. 

Plaintiff raises one count against the Broward Sheriff’s Office for “violation of his First 

amendment Right of Religious Practice.” Am. Compl. Section H. Here, Plaintiff alleges “he was 

2

 To the extent Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges state claims, those claims are not subject to a merits 

analysis here. Therefore, Plaintiff may still file state law claims in state court. Toth, 788 F. App’x at 692. 

Case 0:22-cv-61987-RAR Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 6 of 8
Page 7 of 8

forced by order under duress to remove his very visual Religious head covering which is very very 

important to his Religious practices, and protected by the First Amendment to the ‘Bill of Rights’

in the United States Constitution.” Am. Compl. ¶ 16. The Amended Complaint continues, “[n]ot 

only was his Religious head covering ordered to be removed, the BSO deputies took his religious 

head covering (KIPPA) and put it in a brown paper bag, which was very disrespectful and hurtful 

to name the least to the Plaintiff.” Id. While this count includes more factual allegations than the 

“unsigned capias” allegations (e.g., that his religious head covering was placed in a brown paper 

bag), the Amended Complaint fails to connect these factual details to any cognizable claim. 

Plaintiff does not lay out any of the elements required to assert a First Amendment violation. Nor 

does Plaintiff explain how the alleged facts constitute a First Amendment violation. Therefore, 

the Court concludes that this count is also plead in a shotgun fashion and must be dismissed.

Second, Plaintiff has failed to follow this Court’s instructions to comply with Rule 10’s 

requirement that each numbered paragraph be limited to a single set of circumstances and Rule 8’s 

requirement that plaintiffs state their claims in a manner that is “short and plain.” Order to Amend 

at 5. The Amended Complaint includes a total of eight counts, each directed at a single Defendant. 

Am Compl. ¶¶ 10–17. Each count includes a single paragraph, none of which are limited to a 

single set of circumstances and cannot be described as “short and plain.” To provide one example, 

the Amended Complaint’s count against Broward County Sheriff Gregory Tony reads as follows:

Broward Sheriff Gregory Tony is been sued for allowing his sheriff 

deputies to be executing unsigned defective warrants upon the 

Plaintiff and others, in accordance to an unlawful practice and or 

custom of arresting suspects with unsigned Capias or warrants. 

Plaintiff is one of several people who are/were victims to this 

unlawful unconstitutional action. As head of his office, he must 

insure that Plaintiff, as one of we the peoples constitutional rights 

are protected. He must supervise and protect Plaintiff's right at all 

times. An unsigned and defective Capias or Warrant is trespass upon 

Plaintiff as one of we the people rights.

Case 0:22-cv-61987-RAR Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8

Am Compl. ¶ 14. This singular numbered paragraph addresses multiple circumstances including 

the execution of an unsigned warrant, unlawful practices and customs of wrongful arrests, and 

supervising and protecting Plaintiff’s rights. Further, it is axiomatic that this paragraph is not 

plain. “[A] complaint will be dismissed as insufficient where the allegations it contains are vague 

and conclusory.” Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-57 (11th Cir. 1984). The Court finds 

that this paragraph exemplifies the style of the Amended Complaint, which is conclusory and 

difficult to follow—further supporting the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.

This Court provided Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his initial shotgun pleading and 

provided instructions on how to do so. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to meet the standards 

for a well-pleaded complaint, even with the leeway afforded to pro se litigants. Thus, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 5], is 

DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Any pending motions 

are DENIED as moot. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 22nd day of November, 2022.

 _________________________________

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 0:22-cv-61987-RAR Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 8 of 8