United States District Court 

for the 

Southern District of Florida 

David Arnold Gray, Plaintiff,

v. 

Ronald Howard and others, 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 22-23693-Civ-Scola 

Omnibus Order Granting Motions to Strike and to Stay 

 Plaintiff Gray complains the Defendants—Miami-Dade County and ten 

individuals he describes as Miami-Dade County officials—improperly interfered 

with his job with the County’s Solid Waste Department as a trash truck driver 

and mishandled his grievance submissions. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) In his 

complaint, he lodges three claims: a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim; 

a claim for “willful deprivation of rights”; and a claim for “conspiracy against 

rights.” (Id. at 24–27.) The Defendants ask the Court to dismiss the complaint, 

arguing that they are entitled to qualified immunity, the complaint is a shotgun 

pleading, and that Gray fails to state a claim. (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 7.) 

The Defendants also ask the Court to stay this case based on their qualifiedimmunity arguments. (Defs.’ Mot. to Stay, ECF NO. 11.) After review, the Court 

grants both motions (ECF Nos. 7, 11), striking Gray’s complaint as a shotgun 

pleading and staying this case.1 

 “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). They 

violate Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 10(b), “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). Although “the pleading party is not required to ‘allege a specific fact to cover 

every element or allege with precision each element of a claim, it is still 

necessary that a complaint contain either 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). 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).” 

1 Because the Court strikes Gray’s complaint as a shotgun pleading, it declines to evaluate the 

other issues the Defendants raise in their motions. 

Case 1:22-cv-23693-RNS Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2023 Page 1 of 3
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”). 

 Here, Gray’s complaint sprawls across twenty-eight pages, attaching 

nearly fifty pages of exhibits, the import of which is not always clear. Gray’s 

recitation of the facts of his case are disjointed and difficult to follow. 

Interspersed throughout his description of the events leading up to his lawsuit 

are descriptions of various state and county statutes, ordinances, regulations, 

and operating procedures, the import or applicability of which is murky. Further, 

many of Gray’s allegations are conclusory and difficult to place into context. For 

example, Gray repeatedly says he was denied procedural due process but doesn’t 

connect any of the Defendants’ individual conduct to any particular adverse 

employment action that has been taken against him. Finally, each count—

lodged, without differentiation, against all eleven Defendants collectively—

incorporates all the previous paragraphs of the complaint rather than specifying 

which particular facts support the cause of action within that count. See

Cummings v. Mitchell, 20-14784, 2022 WL 301697, at *3 (11th Cir. Feb. 2, 2022) 

(condemning “the incorporation of preceding paragraphs where a complaint 

contains several counts, each one incorporating by reference the allegations of 

its predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the counts (i.e., all but the 

first) contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions”) (cleaned up). 

Combined, these defects prevent the Court from discerning which allegations 

apply to which of the eleven Defendants (ten individuals and one municipal 

entity) nor whether there are even any allegations that might support a viable 

cause of action. In other words, the 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, 382 F. App’x at 836 

(cleaned up). Instead, the complaint supplies only a loose association of 

workplace events and communications without pinpointing any actual injury or 

each Defendant’s particular liability for that injury. 

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

instructs him to replead his case—if he can, in good faith,2 allege facts directly 

supporting a viable claim for relief against each Defendant. Gray is cautioned to 

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

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

Defendant. The Court also directs Gray to avoid conclusory or vague allegations 

and to make sure that he endeavors to isolate different causes of actions, into 

2 The Court recommends that Gray, in deciding whether to proceed with an amended complaint, 

revisit the issues the Defendants raise in their motion to dismiss and motion for a stay. The 

Court encourages him to reevaluate his claims in light of the Defendants’ challenges.

Case 1:22-cv-23693-RNS Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2023 Page 2 of 3
separate, numbered counts, to the extent there are distinct factual allegations 

that pertain to specific Defendants. Gray must file his amended complaint on or 

before March 3, 2023. If Gray fails to timely comply or files an amended 

pleading with the same deficiencies, the Court may dismiss his case, albeit 

without prejudice.

Further, while there is no active complaint, the Court stays this case with 

respect to any pretrial proceedings other than Gray’s amending his complaint 

and the Defendants’ response thereto. If the Defendants file a motion to dismiss 

the amended pleading and it is denied or if the Defendants file a responsive 

pleading to the amended complaint, the stay is to be considered automatically 

lifted and the parties must, at that point, comply with the Court’s initial order 

and the parties’ respective discovery obligations. 

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on February 10, 2023.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-23693-RNS Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/13/2023 Page 3 of 3