UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-62073-RAR

SAMANTHA KING, 

Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

LETICIA DIEPPA, 

Defendant.

______________________________/ 

ORDER TO AMEND

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

on November 8, 2022. See Complaint [ECF No. 1] (“Compl.”). A “district court has 

unquestionable authority to control its own docket and broad discretion in deciding how best to 

manage the cases before it . . . .” Guice v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Labor, 754 F. App’x 789, 791 (11th Cir. 

2018) (citing Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc., 750 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014)). Moreover, 

“[a] federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte under Rule 41(b)”

for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hanna v. Florida, 599 F. App’x

362, 363 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 48–49 (1991)). 

After careful consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is deficient on two 

main grounds. First, it fails to plausibly allege a cognizable § 1983 claim in violation of Rule 

12(b)(6). Second, the Complaint amounts to a shotgun pleading incapable of giving proper notice 

to Defendant or this Court as to the nature of the claims and the grounds upon which each claim 

rests. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff one opportunity to amend her Complaint. Before 

addressing the pleading deficiencies at issue, Plaintiff is first instructed on generally applicable

rules of pleading. 

Case 0:22-cv-62073-RAR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 1 of 8
Page 2 of 8

LEGAL STANDARD

To begin, although appearing pro se, Plaintiff is required to comply with the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida. See Moon v. Newsome, 

863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (concluding that a pro se litigant is subject to a court’s rules 

and to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); McLeod v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 679 F. App’x 

840, 843 (11th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal of pro se litigant’s noncompliance with court

orders); see also Local Rule 1.1 (explaining the Local Rules apply in all proceedings unless 

otherwise indicated and that the word “counsel” shall apply to a party that is proceeding pro se).

To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a complaint’s factual allegations “must 

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level”—with “enough facts to state a claim 

to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). 

Under this standard, legal conclusions “are not entitled to the assumption of truth” and are 

insufficient to state a claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a pleading that states a claim 

for relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 

to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must specify the grounds for relief available to 

the moving party, state the facts supporting each ground for relief, and must be signed by Plaintiff 

or by a person authorized to sign on behalf of Plaintiff. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8; FED. R. CIV. P. 11. 

When plaintiffs fail to set forth a legally sufficient claim for relief, either because the 

complaint lacks sufficient factual support or because the complaint fails to comport with local 

rules, its usefulness is substantially diminished. Still, pro se litigants should ordinarily be afforded 

an opportunity to amend. See Mederos v. United States, 218 F.3d 1252, 1254 (11th Cir. 2000)

Case 0:22-cv-62073-RAR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 2 of 8
Page 3 of 8

(noting that where it appears a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted, the movant is entitled an opportunity to amend).

If an amended complaint is filed, the Court will only consider claims raised in the amended 

complaint. Furthermore, the Court does not act as researcher or investigator on a plaintiff’s behalf. 

See Fils v. City of Aventura, 647 F.3d 1272, 1284 (11th Cir. 2011) (explaining courts may not act 

as a litigant’s lawyer and construct the party’s theory of liability from facts never alleged, alluded 

to, or mentioned during the litigation). Put simply, this Court does not serve as a litigant’s attorney, 

and any amendment subsumes previous allegations. See GJR Invs., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, 132 

F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662

(2009). Failure to adhere to procedural rules or court orders, of course, provides grounds for 

dismissal. See Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 

1232, 1240–41 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that dismissal of the action may be severe but 

warranted when the grounds for dismissal were previously notified). Indeed, pro se litigants are 

not exempt from procedural rules. See McLeod, 679 F. App’x at 843. 

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, despite the liberal 

construction afforded to pro se filings, they must conform with procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, 

Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007). Likewise, liberal construction does not authorize pro se

litigants to file impermissible “shotgun” pleadings. The Eleventh Circuit has identified four rough 

types or categories of shotgun pleadings. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. 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, 

Case 0:22-cv-62073-RAR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 3 of 8
Page 4 of 8

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 claim for relief.” Id. at 1322–1323. Lastly, 

there is the 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. 

“The unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun pleadings is that they fail to one degree 

or another, and in one way or another, to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against 

them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Id. The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly 

condemned the use of shotgun pleadings for “imped[ing] the administration of the district courts’ 

civil dockets.” PVC Windoors, Inc. v. Babbitbay Beach Constr., N.V., 598 F.3d 802, 806 n.4 (11th 

Cir. 2010). Stated bluntly, shotgun pleadings are “a massive waste of judicial and private 

resources.” Id. (cleaned up). Thus, the Eleventh Circuit has made clear that shotgun pleadings are

an unacceptable form of establishing a claim for relief. Strategic Income Fund, LLC v. Spear, 

Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295–96 (11th Cir. 2002). 

ANALYSIS

With the foregoing legal standards in mind, the Court turns to the instant Complaint. “A

pro se pleading is held to a less stringent standard than a pleading drafted by an attorney and is 

liberally construed.” Waldman v. Conway, 871 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2017); see also Torres 

v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 734 F. App’x 688, 691 (11th Cir. 2018) (“Liberal construction, in more 

concrete terms, means that federal courts must sometimes look beyond the labels used in a pro se

Case 0:22-cv-62073-RAR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 4 of 8
Page 5 of 8

party’s complaint and focus on the content and substance of the allegations.”). Still, as the Court 

stated previously, pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules. See McLeod, 679 F. App’x 

at 843. 

i. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff does not appear to have plausibly alleged a cognizable 

§ 1983 claim sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on this Court. See Compl. at 3.

Plaintiff is suing Leticia Dieppa, who appears to be an attorney in private practice who is 

representing or has represented the father of Plaintiff’s children in a custody dispute. See id. at 7–

15. “Section 1983 plaintiffs must establish both deprivation of a right secured by the United States 

Constitution or federal laws and action by a defendant under color of state law.” Motes v. Myers, 

810 F.2d 1055, 1058 (11th Cir. 1987) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 155 

(1970). The scope of § 1983 is purposely limited to “[exclude] from its reach ‘merely private 

conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.’” Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 

U.S. 40, 50 (1999) (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002 (1982)). A person “acts under 

color of state law when he acts with authority possessed by virtue of his employment with the 

state.” Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001). 

In very limited circumstances, a private individual may be liable under § 1983 if her actions 

can “properly [be] attributed to the state.” Focus on the Family v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth., 

344 F.3d 1263, 1277 (11th Cir. 2003). But a private attorney, even one appointed by the court, 

“does not act under color of law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel.” See 

also Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (dismissing a § 1983 suit against a public 

defender for actions made in his lawyerly capacity as counsel); Szijarto v. Legeman, 466 F.2d 864, 

864 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[A]n attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not act ‘under color of’

Case 0:22-cv-62073-RAR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 5 of 8
Page 6 of 8

state law.”). Plaintiffs satisfy the state action requirement in claims against private defendants 

only when they can establish that a defendant “acted together with or has obtained significant aid 

from state officials, or because his conduct is otherwise chargeable to the State.” Lugar v. 

Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982). Plaintiff’s Complaint has not satisfied these 

requirements to plausibly assert a cognizable § 1983 claim against Defendant.

1

ii. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not give adequate notice to Defendant or this Court as to 

the nature of the claims or the relief sought.

Next, Plaintiff’s Complaint is replete with vague, conclusory, and immaterial information. 

For example, Plaintiff alleges numerous instances where Defendant “violated procedural due 

process,” engaged in “fraudulent actions,” made misrepresentations to the court, “made false 

claims,” presented “the false narrative that the Mother is mentally ill,” defamed the mother, and 

“interfere[ed] with the fair and timely administration of justice.” Compl. at 7–15. But Plaintiff 

does not assert how any of these actions could plausibly establish a claim under § 1983. 

Further, because the Complaint is replete with numerous long form quotations, and 

winding narrations of legal proceedings untethered from specific claims against Defendant, it does 

not comply with Rule 8’s requirement that plaintiffs state their claims in a manner that is “short 

and plain.” The Complaint does not “separat[e] into a different count each cause of action or claim 

for relief.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1322–1323. This, taken together with the vague and immaterial 

information discussed above, renders the Complaint an impermissible shotgun pleading. See id.

1

 Indeed, Plaintiff’s Complaint reads more like a request for attorney discipline. For instance, Plaintiff 

asserts that Defendant presented “knowingly false evidence, despite her duty to disclose” as an officer of 

the court under the Florida Bar’s ethics rules. Compl. at 8.

Case 0:22-cv-62073-RAR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 6 of 8
Page 7 of 8

This is not an exhaustive list of the deficiencies observed in the Complaint. Plaintiff may 

have one opportunity to rectify her Complaint. Plaintiff is instructed to follow the directives and 

applicable rules articulated in this Order if Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action. Thus, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Consistent with the purpose of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 15, Plaintiff is granted leave 

to file an amended complaint. Moreover, the Court encourages Plaintiff to make every effort to 

only assert claims cognizable in federal court.

2. On or before December 15, 2022, the amended complaint must be docketed and 

contain a short and plain statement of a claim for relief, a basis for federal jurisdiction, and a 

demand for judgment.

3. The amended complaint must be labeled “Amended Complaint” and must show the 

case number referenced above so that it will be filed in this case.

4. The amended complaint must explain what the Defendant did and the supporting 

facts to show why that person is being sued.

5. Plaintiff is warned that failure to file the amended complaint on time and in 

compliance with this Order shall result in dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute or failure 

to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

6. Plaintiff is reminded that the amended complaint should, at the very least, cure the 

deficiencies identified within this Order to state a claim for relief.

7. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this

case. Plaintiff is, in addition, warned that failure to file her amended complaint on time and in 

compliance with this Order shall result in this case remaining closed.

Case 0:22-cv-62073-RAR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 5th day of December, 2022.

 

_________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Samantha King, pro se

Case 0:22-cv-62073-RAR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 8 of 8