United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Francisco Rodriguez Cruz, Plaintiff,

v.

Bruce and others, Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 22-22825-Civ-Scola

Order Granting Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

and Striking Complaint

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Francisco Rodriguez Cruz’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) Having reviewed the

motion, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court grants 

Rodriguez’s motion to proceed without prepaying his fees or costs (ECF No. 3); 

however, at the same time, the Court strikes his complaint (ECF No. 1), with 

leave to amend, for the reasons set forth below.

While the precise contours of Rodriquez’s claims are not entirely clear, it 

appears he seeks to recover $1068 from the Defendants, Israel Molina and two 

others—Bruce and Jerome—whose last names Rodriguez does not provide, 

because (1) the Defendants refuse to open the office bathroom; (2) the office is 

not clean; (3) his bookbag was destroyed on August 19, 2022; and (4) he is 

being discriminated against. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) confers discretion on a district court to dismiss

an in forma pauperis action if certain defects are evident from the complaint:

Notwithstanding any filing fees, or any portion thereof, that may

have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the

court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or

malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted;

or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

from such relief.

“A complaint is ‘frivolous’ under § 1915 where there is no subject matter 

jurisdiction.” Jackson v. Lehern McGovern Bovis, Inc., 1:16-CV-02987-CAP, 

2017 WL 11144693, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 13, 2017), report and recommendation 

adopted, 1:16-CV-2987-CAP, 2017 WL 11150834 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 3, 2017)

(citing Davis v. Ryan Oaks Apartment, 357 Fed. App’x 237, 238–39 (11th Cir. 

Dec. 17, 2009) and Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(recognizing the general proposition that a complaint should be dismissed as 

frivolous under § 1915 where subject matter jurisdiction is lacking)).

Case 1:22-cv-22825-RNS Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2022 Page 1 of 4
Although Rodriguez has indicated on his civil cover sheet that his case 

involves “other civil rights,” and mentions discrimination, generally, in his 

complaint, he doesn’t otherwise elaborate on the nature of the discrimination, 

who is inflicting it, or on what basis. Accordingly, the Court can discern no 

actual federal question from any claim Rodriguez might have against the 

Defendants. Instead, it appears Rodriguez’s grievances against the Defendants

all arise under state law. To the extent, then, that Rodriguez seeks to invoke 

the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, he must allege facts sufficient to show that 

the parties are diverse and that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 

jurisdictional threshold. Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1320 (11th 

Cir. 2001). “Those allegations, when federal jurisdiction is invoked based upon 

diversity, must include the citizenship of each party, so that the court is 

satisfied that no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant.” 

Travaglio v. Am. Express Co., 735 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2013). Here, 

Rodriguez does not recite either his or any of the Defendants’ citizenship within 

the body of his complaint but indicates, on his civil cover sheet, that he and 

the Defendants are all citizens of Florida. (Civ. Cover, ECF No. 1-1.) Not only, 

then, is the Court unable to determine that the parties are diverse, but 

Rodriguez’s affirmative indications imply that, indeed, they are not.

Furthermore, as a separate defect, it appears that the amount in controversy 

does not meet the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.

Notwithstanding the jurisdictional hurdles, Rodriguez’s complaint is also 

substantively and procedurally deficient. Despite its brevity, it is, nonetheless, 

a shotgun pleading. “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 and 10, “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). When presented with a shotgun pleading, a district

court should strike the pleading and instruct the party to replead the case,

assuming the litigant can “in good faith make the representations required by

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b).” 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”). 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).

Case 1:22-cv-22825-RNS Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2022 Page 2 of 4
Importantly, as here, “[a] ‘shotgun pleading’—one in which ‘it is virtually 

impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which 

claim(s) for relief’—does not comply with the standards of Rules 8(a) and 10(b).” 

LaCroix, 627 Fed. App’x at 818 (quoting Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Ctr. Fla. 

Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir.1996)). A typically confusing aspect of 

many shotgun pleadings involving multiple defendants is the lumping together 

of all those defendants within the same count. This problem is particularly 

acute in this case where Rodriguez alleges each purported cause of action 

against all the Defendants named in this case, en masse, without specifying 

which acts each Defendant is individually responsible for. This makes it 

impossible for the Defendants, or the Court, to ascertain exactly what 

Rodriguez is claiming each Defendant actually did. Furthermore, Rodriguez’s 

complaint is mostly devoid of any actual facts, setting forth identifiable, factbased support, for any particular allegations of wrongdoing. To fix these

problems, the complaint must contain specific allegations with respect to each 

defendant, separating the distinct allegations against the various Defendants 

into separate counts, which must each identify a particular cause of action.

In sum, then, Rodriguez’s allegations make it nearly impossible for the 

Court to discern (1) which allegations apply to which claims; (2) what causes of 

actions are alleged and as to which defendants; and (3) what facts support 

Rodriguez’s allegations of wrongdoing. 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 v. EMC Mortg. Corp., 382 F. App’x 833, 836 (11th Cir. 2010) 

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

and unexplained injuries, without sorting any discernable facts into a 

comprehensible narrative as to each Defendant’s actual specific liability.

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

instructs him to replead his case though an amended complaint, if he can, in 

good faith, allege facts directly supporting at least one viable claim for relief 

against the Defendants, or at least one of them. Rodriguez 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. Further, in 

compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b), Rodriguez must state his

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 Rodriguez to 

avoid conclusory or vague allegations, or to at least supplement them with factbased claims, and to make sure that he endeavors to separate different causes 

Case 1:22-cv-22825-RNS Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2022 Page 3 of 4
of actions, to the extent there is more than one, into separate, numbered 

counts.

Additionally, as explained above, because the Court cannot discern if it 

has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case, whether through a federal 

question or diversity, Rodriguez must also set forth, in his amended complaint, 

if he can do so in good faith, facts establishing the Court’s jurisdiction.

Rodriguez must file his amended complaint, compliant with the above 

and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on or before October 12, 2022.

Rodriguez is forewarned that if he fails to timely comply with this order, his 

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 pending motions, not 

including Rodriguez’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, are denied as 

moot.

Done and ordered, in Miami, Florida, on September 21, 2022.

______________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Copy, via U.S. mail, to: 

Francisco Rodriguez Cruz

15605 SW 295 Tr 

Homestead, FL 33033

Case 1:22-cv-22825-RNS Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/22/2022 Page 4 of 4