[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-12949

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

HAROLD JEAN-BAPTISTE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-23181-RNS

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-12949 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12949

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Harold Jean-Baptiste, proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint without 

prejudice as a shotgun pleading and directing him to file an 

amended complaint. After review, we affirm. 

I. Background

Jean-Baptiste filed a pro se complaint against Publix 

Supermarkets, Inc., alleging that he was bringing the complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986; 21 U.S.C. §§ 342(a), 343, 

350g, 246, and “lack care of duty, Ninth Amendment, negligence, 

[and] cruel and human rights violations.” In his complaint, he 

alleged that he went to the Miami University Hospital on June 30, 

2023, due to an unexplained spike in his blood pressure after 

drinking from a Smartwater bottle that he purchased from a Publix 

Supermarket in Miami, Florida. He was admitted to the hospital, 

and claimed that a special agent with the FBI at the hospital told 

hospital staff “not [to] inform[] [Jean-Baptiste] of the toxic 

substance in his system.” He maintained that the FBI agent’s 

presence and actions at the hospital “implie[d] complicity” and 

demonstrated that the FBI was targeting him with Publix’s help

and tampered with the last two water bottles on the shelf, which 

Jean-Baptiste purchased. He asserted that the FBI was targeting 

him because of past lawsuits he had filed against the FBI. 

USCA11 Case: 23-12949 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 2 of 7
23-12949 Opinion of the Court 3

In a section labeled “Violations of Laws,” Jean-Baptiste 

alleged in a conclusory manner that Publix violated his civil rights, 

human rights, was negligent, willfully ran a store with 

contaminated food, willfully mislabeled food, failed to evaluate the 

hazards of the food in its store, failed to prevent illegal activity, and 

treated him unfairly based on his race, color, and national origin, 

constituting harassment and retaliation. He requested declaratory 

relief and compensatory and punitive damages. 

The district court sua sponte struck the complaint as an 

impermissible shotgun pleading and directed Jean-Baptiste to file 

an amended complaint. The district court explained the 

deficiencies in the complaint and what Jean-Baptiste needed to do 

to fix them.1 However, rather than file an amended complaint, 

Jean-Baptiste filed a notice of appeal. 

II. Discussion

Although Jean-Baptiste does not expressly address the 

dismissal of the complaint on shotgun pleading grounds, he argues 

generally that the district court misapplied the law and erred in 

dismissing his complaint, and that the dismissal denied him his 

1 Minutes before the district court issued the dismissal order, Jean-Baptiste filed 

an amended complaint that was identical to the original. The district court 

issued a paperless order striking this complaint, noting that it was filed minutes 

before the court issued the dismissal order on shotgun pleading grounds, and 

again directed Jean-Baptiste to correct the identified deficiencies and file an 

amended complaint. 

USCA11 Case: 23-12949 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 23-12949

opportunity to present his case to the courts. We disagree for the 

reasons set forth below.

“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than 

pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally 

construed.” Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003) 

(quotations omitted). “A district court has the inherent authority 

to control its docket and ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits, 

which includes the ability to dismiss a complaint on shotgun 

pleading grounds.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295

(11th Cir. 2018) (quotations omitted). We review the district 

court’s dismissal for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1294.

“A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates either 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both.” 

Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021). Rule 8 

requires that the complaint set forth “a short and plain statement 

of the claim” demonstrating an entitlement to relief, and Rule 10 

requires that a plaintiff “state [his] claims . . . in numbered 

paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of 

circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and 10(b). Rule 10 further 

provides that each claim be stated in separate counts “[i]f doing so 

would promote clarity.” Id. R. 10(b). As we have previously 

explained, there are approximately four types of shotgun pleadings. 

Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 

2015).

The most common type—by a long shot—is a 

complaint containing multiple counts where each 

USCA11 Case: 23-12949 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 4 of 7
23-12949 Opinion of the Court 5

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. The next most common type, at 

least as far as our published opinions on the subject 

reflect, is a complaint that does not commit the 

mortal sin of re-alleging all preceding counts but is 

guilty of the venial sin of being replete with 

conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously 

connected to any particular cause of action. The 

third type of shotgun pleading is one that commits 

the sin of not separating into a different count each 

cause of action or claim for relief. Fourth, and finally, 

there is the relatively rare sin of 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 1321–23 (footnotes omitted).

We have repeatedly condemned the use of shotgun 

pleadings. See Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324; Magluta v. Samples, 256 

F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). And we have explained that where 

a party files a shotgun pleading, “the district court should strike the 

pleading and instruct [the party] to replead the case . . . even when 

the other party does not move to strike the pleading.” Jackson v. 

Bank of Am., 898 F.3d 1348, 1357–58 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotations 

omitted); see also Woldeab v. DeKalb Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 1289, 

1291–92 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining that generally, where a more 

USCA11 Case: 23-12949 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 23-12949

carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, the district court 

abuses its discretion if it does not provide a pro se plaintiff at least 

one opportunity to amend before the court dismisses with 

prejudice). In dismissing the improper shotgun pleading, the 

district court should explain how the pleading violated the shotgun 

rule so that the plaintiff can remedy those issues in his next 

pleading. Vibe Micro, 878 F.3d at 1296. 

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

dismissing the complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading 

and directing Jean-Baptiste to file an amended complaint. The 

complaint was a shotgun pleading because it contained conclusory, 

vague, and immaterial facts that were not obviously connected to 

a particular count. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321–23 (explaining that 

one type of shotgun pleading is one that is “replete with 

conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected 

to any particular cause of action”). The complaint also improperly 

listed, within a single paragraph, numerous causes of action in 

violation of Rules 8 and 10. Therefore, the district court properly 

dismissed the complaint without prejudice, identified the 

deficiencies and explained how to correct them, and provided JeanBaptiste an opportunity to amend as required. See Jackson, 898 F.3d 

at 1357–58; Vibe Micro, 878 F.3d at 1296. 

Jean-Baptiste chose to appeal instead of amend the 

complaint, thereby waiving his right to amend. See Schurrman v. 

Motor Vessel Betty K V, 798 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir. 1986) (“Once the 

plaintiff chooses to appeal before the expiration of time allowed for 

USCA11 Case: 23-12949 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 6 of 7
23-12949 Opinion of the Court 7

amendment, however, the plaintiff waives the right to later amend 

the complaint, even if the time to amend has not yet expired.”); see 

also Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1244 

n.1 (11th Cir. 2005) (same). Accordingly, the district court did not 

abuse its discretion, and we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-12949 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 7 of 7