FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 4, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 57 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 6- cv -0 01 79 -CEH-SP C DANIEL W . MCM AHON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, CAROLYN STEPP, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff , ve rs us CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s, JOSE LOPEZ, DON HUNT ER, in di vi du al , LYNN AN

N GIZZI, DAVID JOLICOEUR, SANDY LEE HURTADO, Dis pa tc he r on 7/ 1/ 08 , et al ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s- App el le es .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 4 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Dan ie l M cMaho n, a p riv at e ci ti zenpro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t
co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s thi rdam en de d c om pl ai ntfil edag ai ns t n um ero us in di vi du al de fen da nt s, the co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo r anem erg en cy in jun ct io n a nd te m po rary restrai ni ng ord er, an d t he co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s re qu es t t o re cei ve el ectro ni c n ot ifi cat io n o f co urt fi li ng s. Aft er a tho ro ug h re vi ew of th e rec or d, we affi rm . I. Thi s ca se ari se s fr om

McM ah on ’s sev eral arre st s i n c on ne ct io n wi thhi s in te ract io n wi th th e st aff andsec ur it y off ic ers of t he Cle ve landCli ni c in Napl es , Fl or id a, in 20 03 an d 2 00 4. In Apri l 2 00 6, M cMa ho n fi le d aco m pl ai ntag ai ns t
nu m ero us na m edde fen da nt s, i nc lu di ng th e Cl ev el an d C li ni c, th e Co ll ie r Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Offi ce (“ CCSO” ), th e Offi ce o f th e St at e Att orne y for th e 2 0t h J ud ic ia l Ci rcu itof F lo rid a (“ St at e Att orne y ’s Offic e”), an d s ev eral in di vi du al em pl oyees o f 2th os e o rg an iz at io ns , in cl ud in g C CSO Dep ut y Jo se Lop ez, al le gi ng vi ol at io ns of 4 2 U.S.C. §§ 19 83 , 19 85 , and19 86 , th e Fi fth an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en ts , andst at e la w cla im s o f m al ic io us pro se cu ti on an d m al ic io us ab us e o f pr oc es s. The reaf te r, th e co urt s tru ckMcM ah on ’s com pl ai ntas a“ sh ot gu n p le ad in g,”
no ti ng th atMcM ah on ’s all eg at io ns were “ ram bl in g, d is or gani zed , pre do m in at el y in co he ren t an d p ep pe redwith i rrel ev an ci es .” The c ou rt a ll owe d M cMa ho n t o fi le
anam en de d c om

pl ai ntan d i ns tru ct edhi m to pl eadhi s al le ga ti on s “ in a co nc is e, co he ren t m an ne r th atset s fo rth reco gn iz edcau se s o f act io n i n n um be redco un ts ag ai ns t s pe ci fic de fen da nt s tha t re m ai n p art ie s t o t hi s ac ti on .” McM ah onfil edanam en de d c om pl ai nt , whi chall eg edsi m il ar fa ct s reg ard in g h is arre st s, b utna m edfewer d efen dant s. Mc Mah on ’s factua l al le ga ti on s reg ard in g h is two arre st s wer e si m il ar t o t ho se setforth inhi s i ni ti al co m pl ai nt . McM ah onth enfil eda m ot io n t o a m en d h is co m pl ai ntto ad d c la im s ar is in g ou t o f ev en ts in vo lv in g t he SWAT team an d h is wife inJu ly 200 8. Th e co urt gr an te d t he m ot io n t o a m en d, an d M cMa ho n fi le d asec on d a m en de d c om pl ai nt ag ai ns t n um ero us CCSO em pl oyees andsev eral un na m ed“ Jo hn Doe” CCSO
em pl oyees. Th e se co ndam en de d c om pl ai ntto ta le d 7 3 p ag es an d c on ta in ed23 pa ge s o f ge ne ral all eg at io ns an d 4 3 c ou nt s, re as se rti ng si m il ar fa ct s t o t he fir sttwo
co m pl ai nt s re ga rd in g h is fir sttwo arre st s, b utad di ng nu m ero us fact s re la ti ng to hi s 3Ju ly 200 8 arres t b y th e SWAT team

at h is ho us e. ThenSh eri ff Kev in Ram bo sk fil eda m ot io n fo r a m or e d efi ni te st at em en t, ar gu in g t ha t the co nv ol ut edna tu re o f th e se co ndam en de d c om pl ai ntdi d n otpu t h im

on no ti ce as to whatcla im s McM ah on ha d fi le d a ga in sthi m or t he othe r de fen da nt s, o r un de r wha t the ory of la w th os e cl ai m s wer e p res en te d. Aft er h ol di ng a st atus co nf eren ce, the co urt
or de redMcM ah on to fil e a thi rdam en de d c om pl ai nt . Acco rd in gl y , McM ah onfil eda th irdam en de d c om pl ai nt , whi chwas 2 58 pa ge s l on g, d iv id edin to 34 pa ge s o f “ Gen eral All eg at io ns ,” an d i nc lu de d 2 13 sp eci fic co un ts . This co m pl ai ntna m ed18 de fen da nt s an d 1 7 “ Jo hnDoe” de fen da nt s, al l em

pl oyees o f th e CCS O. In the “ Gen eral All eg at io ns ” se ct io n, McM ah on real le ge d t he same bas ic fact s tha t h adsupp orte d h is pri or th ree co m pl ai nt s. Mc Mah on ’s 21 3 c ou nt s al le ge d (1 ) fed eral cla im s o f m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on , in te rfer en ce an d re ta li at io n und er the Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act (ADA), co ns pi racy, fals e arr es t, fa ls e im pr is on m en t; (2) st at e la w cla im s o f
m al ic io us pro se cu ti on , in te nt io na l an d n eg li ge ntin fli ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss , tre sp as si ng , fal se im

pr is on m en t, fa ls e arre st ; (3 ) co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns of h is Fi rs t an d F ou rth Am en dm en t ri gh ts , du e p ro ces s ri gh ts , andrig htto pri va cy ; an d (4 ) vi ol at io ns un de r Fl or id a’s Su ns hi ne Law, Fla.St at .Ann
. § 11 9.0 7. Th es e sp eci fie d c ou nt s d idno t i nc or po rat e o r refe r ba ck

to an y of t he factua l al le ga ti on s 4pr ov id edinth e “ Gen eral All eg at io ns ” se ct io n a nddi d n otco nt ai n a ny factu al

de ta il th em se lv es . As the cas e p ro gr es se d, M cMa ho n fi le d (1 ) a m ot io n t o re cei ve ele ctro ni c no ti fic at io n o f co urt fi li ng s s o t ha t h e co ul d h av e a l on ge r pe rio d o f ti m e to
res po nd , and(2) anem erg en cy m ot io n fo r in

jun ct iv e rel ie f an d ares tra in in g o rd er ag ai ns t the CCSO an d 2 0th J ud ic ia l Ci rcu it , all eg in g t ha t h e was for cedto lea ve th e co un try becaus e o f de ath t hr eat s m ad e b y ag en ts of t he CCSO an d “ m os t li ke ly” th e 2 0t h J ud ic ia l Ci rcu it . The co urt d en ie d b ot h m ot io ns , fin di ng th atth ere was no go odcau se to all ow M cMaho n a cces s t o e le ctro ni c n ot ifi cat io n o r fi li ng , an d t ha t M cMaho n h adfai le d t o s at is fy th e requi rem en ts of F ed .R.Ci v.P . 65 (b )
an d t he co urt’s l oc al rul es to be en ti tl edto anin jun ct io n o r res tra in in g o rd er. Upo n the reco m

m en da ti on of am ag is tra te jud ge , andov er Mc Mah on ’s ob jecti on s, the di stric t co urt co nc lu de d tha t the th irdam en de d c om pl ai ntwas “ a sh ot gu n p le ad in g t ha t i s due to be di sm is se d b ecau se th e li ta ny of fac ts an d
nu m ero us co un ts are d is

joi nt edan d i nc oh eren t.” Acc or di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt di sm is se d t he co m

pl ai ntwitho utpre

jud ic e. Thi s i s M cMa ho n’s ap pe al
.
II. On ap pe al , McM ah onch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s thi rd 5am en de d c om pl ai nt , th e d en ia l o f hi s re qu es t fo r in jun ct iv e rel ie f, an d t he de ni al of
acce ss to th e el ectro ni c fi li ng s. We addres s ea chis su e inturn . A. Dism is sa l o f th e Thi rdAm en de d C om pl ai nt W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l fo r fai lure t o c om pl y with t he co urt’s
ru le s fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Bett y K Ag en ci es , Ltd. v. M/V Mon ad a , 43 2 F .3d 13 33 , 13 37 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e al so rev ie w a di sm is sa l u nd er Fe d.R .Civ .P. 41 (b ) fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Gra tt on v. Grea t Am. Co mmc’n s , 17 8 F .3d13 73 , 13 74 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . Rul e 4 1( b) all ows a de fen da ntto m ov e to di sm is s the act io n “ [i]f th e p la in ti ff fai ls to pro se cu te or t o c om pl y with the se rul es or aco urt o rd er.” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 41 (b ). Desp it e th e p la inlan gu ag e o f Ru le 41 (b ) in di cat in g t ha t a de fen da ntm ay

m ov e fo r di sm is sa l, a d is tri ctco urt m ay su a s po nt e di sm is s a c as e un de r th e au th or it y

of e ithe r Ru le 41 (b ) orth e co urt’s i nh eren t p owe r to m an ag e it s do ck et . Bett

y K Ag en ci es , Ltd
. , 43 2 F .3dat 1 33 7. “ Whi le di sm is sa l i s an ex tra or di na ry

rem edy , di sm is sa l upo n d is reg ardof a n o rd er, es pe ci al ly whe re the li ti ga ntha s b eenfor ewarn ed , gen eral ly is n otanab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Moo n v . Newso me , 86 3 F .2d83 5, 8 37 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). Altho ug h we c on stru e p le ad in gs fil edby pr o s e pa rti es li be ral ly, Alb a v . Mon tf ord , 51 7 F .3d12 49 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ), th is “ do es no t g iv e a co urt li cen se to serve as de fa ct o co un se l fo r a p arty , or t o re writ e anot he rwis e d efi ci en t 6pl ead in g i n o rd er t o s us ta in anact io n.” GJR Invs., In c. v. Cn ty . of Esca mbi a, Fla. , 132 F. 3d 1 359, 136 9 ( 11t

h C ir
. 199 8) ( ci tatio ns o mitt ed), ov er ruled on o the r grou nds , se e Ran da ll

v. Sc ot t , 610 F
. 3d 7 01, 709 ( 11t h C ir
. 201 0)
. Ru le 8 o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e requi res th at“ [a] pl ead in g th atst at es a cl ai m

forrel ie f m

us t co nt ai n . . . a sh ort an d p la inst at em en t o f th e cl ai m sh owi ng th atth e p le ad er i s en ti tl edto rel ie f,” an d t ha t “ [e]achall eg at io n m us t b e si m

pl e, co nc is e, an d d ire ct .” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 8(a )(2 ), (d )(1 ). “ [T]he st at em en t n eedon ly giv e th e d efen da ntfai r no ti ce o f wha t the
. . . cl ai m is an d t he gr ou ndup on whi chitres ts .” Eri cks on v. Pardu s , 55 1 U.S. 8 9, 9 3, 1 27 S.Ct . 21 97 , 22 00 , 16 7 L.Ed .2d10 81 (20 07 ) (el li ps es inori gi na l). With th is inmin d, we h av e ro ut in el y co nd em ne d “ sh ot gu n” pl ead in gs . Dav is v. Co ca -Co la Bot tl in g C o. Co ns ol
. , 51 6 F .3d95 5, 9 79 & n .54 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). A “ sh ot gu n p le ad in g” is a pl ead in g t ha t “ in co rp or at e[s ] ev ery an te ced en t al le ga ti on by referen ce i nt o e ach
subs eque ntcla im

forrel ie f oraffi rm at iv e d efen se .” W agne r v. Fi rs t Ho ri

zo n Pha rm. Co rp . , 46 4 F .3d12 73 , 12 79 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Sho tg un pl ead in gs m ak e it

“ vi rtu al ly im

po ss ib le to kn ow wh ic h a ll eg at io ns of f actare i nt en de d t o s up po rt whi chcla im (s ) fo r rel ie f.” Ander so n v . Dis t. Bd. of

Trs . of Cen t. Fla . Cmty. C

ol l. , 77 F.3d36 4, 3 66 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). Inth is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d is m is si ng 7McM ah on ’s th irdam en de d c om pl ai ntwitho utpre

jud ic e b ecau se itwas ash ot gu n pl ead in g fi le d i n v io la ti on of t he co urt’s o rd er. Furth er, Mc Mah on fil edde fect iv e 1
am en de d c om

pl ai nt s d es pi te ha vi ng rece iv edno ti ce o f th e p le ad in g re qu ire m en ts
an d awarn in g t ha t the co urt wo ul d n otto le rat e sh ot gu n p le ad in gs aft er i t di sm is se d h is ori gi na l co m pl ai ntforsi m il ar d efi ci en ci es . Bec au se of M cMa ho n’s co nt in ue d n on co m pl ia nc e wit h t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e an d t he co urt’s o rd er t o fi le a pr op er thi rdam en de d c om pl ai nt , th e di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d is m is si ng hi s ac ti on . B. Deni al of I nju nc ti ve Rel ie f 2 W e rev ie w th e d eci si on to de ny a prel im in ary in jun ct io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, re vi ewin g t he di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actforcle ar erro r an d i ts le ga l co nc lu si on s de no vo . Sc ot t v. Ro be rt s , 61 2 F .3d12 79 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ).

A dismiss al without prejudice is tantamount to a dismiss al with prejudice when the plaintiff 1 is barr ed from ref

iling his complaint by the s tatute of limit at i o ns. Burden v. Y ates , 644 F.2d 503, 505 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981). Dismissal with prejudice is “ a drastic reme dy to be used only in those situations wher e a lesser sanction would not better serve the interests of justice.” Id. Although the s t atute of limit ations has run with respe ct to McMahon’ s claims arising in 2003 and 2004, wh i ch eff ectively means that those claims have been dismiss ed with prejudice , the sanction did not amount to abuse of discretion here becau s e M cMahon jeopar dized those claims by filing two defe ctive complaints that added numerous n ew d ef en d ants and claims to his complaint afte r the statute of limit ations had run on those c laims. Although the appellee s argue that we lack jurisdiction beca use McMahon failed to specify 2 this issue in h i s notice of appea l, we disagree . “[T] he appea l from a final judgme nt draw s in question all prior non-final order s and ruling s which produce d the judgme nt.” Barfield v. Brierton , 883 F.2d 923, 930 ( 11th Cir. 1989). 8The grantof “ a p rel im in ary in jun ct io n i n a dv an ce o f tr ia l i s an ex tra or di na ry rem edy .” Blo ed

or n v . Gru be , 63 1 F .3d12 18 , 12 29 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). A di st ric t
co urt m ay gra ntin jun ct iv e rel ie f on ly if th e m ov in g p arty sh ows th at : (1 ) [itha s] a subs ta nt ia l l ik el ih oo d o f su cces s o n t he m eri ts ; (2 ) irr ep arab le in

jury w il l b e su ffer edun le ss th e in jun ct io n i ss ue s; (3) th e th reat en edin

jury to the m ov an t o ut weig hs what ev er d am ag e th e pr op os edin

jun ct io n m ay

cau se th e o pp os in g p arty ; an d (4 ) if is su ed , th e in jun ct io n wo ul d n otbe adve rs e to th e p ub li c in te res t. Id
. If th e p la in ti ff fai ls to sh ow a s ub st an ti al li ke li ho odof s uc ces s o n t he m eri ts , th e co urt n eedno t co ns id er the ot he r requi rem en ts . Id
. Add it io na ll y , th e v ers io n o f Fed .R.Ci v.P . 65 ineffe ctat t he ti m e o f McM ah on ’s m ot io n fo r a t em po rary restrai ni ng ord er s ta te d t ha t: [t]he co urt m ay

is su e a t em

po rary restrai ni ng ord er wi th ou t wri tt enor or al no ti ce t o t he adve rs e p arty or i ts att orne y

on ly if: (A) s pe ci fic fact s i n a n a ffi da vi t o r a v eri fie d c om pl ai ntcle arl y sh ow tha t i m

m ed ia te an d i rrep arab le in jury, lo ss , or d am ag e wil l res ul t t o t he m ov an t b efo re the adve rs e p arty canbe he ardin op po si ti on ; an d (B) the m ov an t’s at to rn ey cert ifi es inwrit in g a ny efforts m ad e to gi ve no ti ce an d t he reas on s wh y itsh ou ldno t b e requi red
. Fed .R.Ci v.P . 65 (b ) (2 00 8)
. Here, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n de nyin g M cMa ho n’s m ot io n fo r a t em po rary restrai ni ng ord er b ecau se he fai le d t o pr ov id e an y

of t he in fo rm at io n re qu ire d b y Ru le 65 (b ). Fed .R.Ci v.P . 65 (b ) (2 00 8)
. 9Fu rth erm or e, itis cle ar tha t M cMa ho n d idno t al le ge , m uc h l es s s at is fy

th e b ur de n of pe rs ua si on inpro vi ng , th athi s cl ai m ha d asubs ta nt ia l l ik el ih oo d o f su cces s o n th e m eri ts , whi chis a pr erequi si te to th e g ran t o f a p rel im in ary in jun ct io n. Blo ed orn , 63 1 F .3dat 1 22 9. C. Deni al of El ectro ni c Not ifi cat io n o f Co urt Fi li ng W e g iv e “ gr eatde fere nc e to a di st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f it s l oc al
ru le s” an d re vi ew “ a d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f it s l oc al rul es foranab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Man n v . Tas er Int ern., In c. , 58 8 F .3d12 91 , 13 02 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). To s at is fy th e ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard , a pl ai nt iff m us t s ho w th atth e d is tri ct
co urt m ad e a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t. Id
. The Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a lo cal rul es st at e th atth e co urt “ m ay pre sc rib e by adm in is tra ti ve ord er p ro cedur es forele ctro ni c fi li ng an d re la te d m at te rs inciv il
an d c riminal cas es . The ad m in is tra ti ve ord er s ha ll go ve rn , no twi th st an di ng th es e ru le s, wh ic h o th erwi se wil l g ov ernto th e ex te ntno t i nc on si st en t wi th th e adm in is tra ti ve ord er.” M.D. Fl a. L.R. 1.0 1. Th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct ’s adm in is tra ti ve pr oc edur es reg ard in g t he CM/ ECF s y st em st at e th at“ [u ]nle ss au th or iz edto fil e el ectro ni cal ly, a p ro se f

il er s ha ll fil e an y

pl ead in g a ndothe r pape r in pape r fo rm at . If au th or iz edto fil e el ectro ni cal ly, th e p ro se f il er m us t fo ll ow the se pro cedur es .”

“ CM/ ECF Adm in is tra ti ve Pro cedur es ,” Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a, Mar . 15 , 20 07 , 10at10
. Inth is cas e, th e co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g M cMaho n

acce ss to CM/ ECF to rece iv e el ectro ni c n ot ifi cat io ns , as i t fo un d n o g oo d c au se un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of t he cas e to au th or iz e h is acce ss . Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm . AFFIRMED.

11