F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Au gust 22, 20 05 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1558 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 02 07 7- CV-B- NE LULA T . BECKW ITH, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us BELLSOUTH T ELECOMMUNICATIONS INC ., an d KEMP ER NATIONAL SERVICES, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Augus t 22 , 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BA RKE T T and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

L ula Be ckw ith , a54- y ear old

A fr ic anA m er ic anf

em al e, pr o se appe al s th e dis m iss al of

he r co m pla int of dis cr im inatio n invio la tio n of T itl e V II of

the Ci vil Rights Act of 1964, the Am ericans with Disabilities Act, the Fam ily and Medical Le ave A ct, and the Em

ploy ee Re tirem ent Incom e Se curity Ac t. T he district court dis m iss ed Be ckw ith ’ s c om

pla int w ithpr ej udi ce a s asanc tio n f or not c om ply ing w ithit s or de rs . A lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y e xe rc ise d it s di sc re tio n by re qui ri ng B ec kw ithto pr ovi de am or e de fi nit e state m en t of he r co m pla int and b y refusing to clarify

a verbal order

in writing, w e conclude that the district court abused its d iscretion when it dism issed Beckwith’ s com plaint with prej udice w ith out af ind ing of ba d f ai th o r w ilf

uln es s and tha t a

le sse r sanc tio n w oul d no t suffice. W e, therefor e, aff irm in part, r everse in part, and rem and to the dis trict co urt. I. BACKG ROUND O n A u g u s t2 6 , 2 0 0 2 , B e c kw i t h f i l e dh e r f o u rt h c o mp l a i n to f

v a r i o u s f o rms of discrim ination against BellSouth Telecom m unication s Inc. and Kem

per National Services. K em per and BellSouth m oved to d ism iss the com plaint based on r es j udi cata . B ec au se K em pe r an d B el lS outh su

bm itt ed e vid en ce out sid e the ple ad ing s, the dis tr ic t c ourt i nf orm ed Be ckw iththat i t w oul d c onsi de r the m oti on as one f or sum m ar y j udgm en t.3

O n S ep te m

be r 22, 200 3, the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed w ithpr ej udi ce som e of Be ckw ith ’ s c la im s, and, in a se parate or de r, the dis tr ic t c ourt di re ct ed Be ckw ithto fi le an am en de d c om

pla int that c om pli ed w ithRu le s 8( a) , 8( e) (1 ), 10( b) , and 1 1( b) of the F ed er al Ru le s of

Ci vil P ro ce dur e. T he c ourt i nc lud ed the te xt o f the r

ule s in the order. T he court specifically instructed that “ each count in the am ended co m pla int sho uld c ont ai n no m or e than on e dis cr et e cl ai m f or r el ie f ag ai nst

one defendant. T he am ended com plaint m ust also con tain allegations o f fa ct that supp ort e ac h di sc re te c la im . F ai lur e to c om ply w iththi s or de r m ay

r es ult in thi s action being d ism issed.” O n October 17, 2003 , B eckwith filed an am ended co m p l ai n t . Th e a m en d ed co m p l ai n tco n t ai n ed al l eg at i o n s s i m i l art o Be ck wi t h ’s original com

plaint. K em

per and BellSouth then m oved the court to require Be ckw itha ga in t o f

ile am or e de fi nit e state m en t un de r Fe de ra l R ule of Ci vil Pro cedur e 1 2( e). The district court ora lly

granted the m otion for a m ore definite statem ent at a sc he dul ing c onf

er en ce he ld o n N ove m

be r 17, 200 3. A lth oughthe re is no tr an sc ri pt o f the c onf

er en ce , the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed , in its or de r of dis m iss al , that, at the c onf er en ce , “ [t ] he c ourt di sc uss ed w ithpla int if

f the c ourt’ s S ep te m

be r 22, 2003 , O rder and the prob lem s with plaintiff’ s Am ended Com plaint. T he court inf orm ed pla int if f that he r Co m

pla int did not c om ply w iththe F ed er al Ru le s of4

Ci vil P ro ce dur e an d di sc uss ed w iththe pla int if

f the r equir em en ts o f a va lid Co m pla int . ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt a llo w ed Be ckw itham onth to f

ile ase co nd am en de d c om

pla int . O n D ec em

be r 19, 200 3, Be ckw ithf ile d ase co nd am en de d c om pla int . T he se co nd am en de d c om

pla int c ont ai ne d a“ St at em en t of F ac ts” that w as sim ilar to the facts in her tw o earlier com plaints. Beckw ith began with an explanation of her em plo ym en t hi sto ry

and the n a lle ge d th at

she w as dis cr im inate d a ga ins t w he n sh e w as te rm inate d and d en ie d be ne fi ts b y Be llS outh and K em

pe r. S he a lso com plained that sh e w as discrim inated against in the denial of short and lon g term dis ab ili ty be ne fi ts b y

K em pe r an d B el lS outh. B ec kw itha lle ge d vi olatio ns o f “ 42 U.S.C. se ct io n 2 00 0,” Tit le VII, th e FMLA, t he ADA, andERISA. O n January

8, 200 4, K em

pe r an d B el lS outh m ove d to dis m iss the se co nd am en de d c om

pla int . O n Augus t 27 , 200 4, the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed the co m pla int w ithpr ej udi ce . T he c ourt no te d th at “ [n ] one of

the doc um en ts f

ile d by pla int if f ha ve c om e cl ose to advis ing de fe ndants w ha t a ct s or c ondu ct of de fe ndants f

orm the ba sis of

pla int if f’ s c la im s. ” T he c ourt st at ed that i t gave

“ pla int if f se ve ra l op portun iti es to co rr ec t the de fi ci en ci es in he r Co m pla int , ” but that “ Plaintiff has been unable or unwilling to file a Com plaint th at could be read to req ui re an Ans wer fro m de fen da nt s.” B eck wit h n ow ap pe al s.5 II. D ISCU SSION Be ckw ithm ak es thr ee arg um en ts o n a ppe al . S he f

ir st c ont en ds tha t the district court erre d when it granted the m otion by Ke m per and BellSouth for a m or e de fi nit e state m en t. B ec kw ithne xt arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

w he n it did not r es pond to he r m oti on f

or aw ri tte n or de r to c lari fy it s ve rb al or de r at

the Sc he dul ing Co nf

er en ce . F ina lly , Be ckw itharg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s d i s cr et i o n wh en i td i s m i s s ed h erco m p l ai n t wi t h p re ju d i ce as a s an ct i o n . We ad dr es s e ac h arg um en t i n turn .

A . M oti on f or M ore D ef ini te Sta te m en t Fe de ra l R ule of Ci vil P ro ce dur e 8( a) (2 ) re qui re s th at aple ad ing c ont ai n a

“ shor t and p la in s ta te m en t of

the c la im ” that sh ow s th at the ple ad er

is en tit le d to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P . 8(a )(2). Feder al Rule of Civil Pr ocedure 10(b) re quires that the a lle ga tio ns o f a cl ai m “ sha ll be m ad e in num

be re d para gr ap hs, the c ont en ts o f ea chof w hic h sh al l be li m ite d a s f ar a s pr ac tic ab le to a state m en t of asin gle se t of ci rc um stanc es . . . [ an d] [ e] ac h c la im f ound upo n ase parate tr an sa ct ionor oc cu rren ce . . . sh al l b e st at edin a se pa rat e co un t.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 10 (b ). A lth oughw e co nstru e the m li be ra lly , pr o se c om

pla int s a lso m

ust c om ply w iththe procedural rules that govern pleading s. S ee Mc Ne il v. U nited States, 508 U. S. 106, 113, 113 S. Ct. 1980 , 1984 (1993).6

T he f ai lur e to i de nti fy

c la im s w ithsuf

fi ci en t c lari ty

to en ab le the de fe ndant to f ram e a re spon siv e ple ad ing c onst itu te s a“ shot gun ple ad ing . ” By rn e v. N ez ha t, 261 F.3d 107 5, 1129-30 (11t h Cir. 2001 ). W e have explained that, beca use

“ shot gun” ple ad ing s pr es en t an un fa ir bur de n onade fe ndant, the pla int if f shou ld be r equir ed

to pr ovi de am or e de fi nit e state m en t of his c om pla int : [I] t is virtuallyim

poss ible to kn ow w hich allegations of fac t are intended to suppo rt w hich claim (s) for relief . Under the F ederal Ru le s of Ci vil P ro ce dur e, ade fe ndant f ac ed w itha[ shot gun] com plaint . . . is not exp ected to fram e a r espons ive pleading. Rather, the defendant is expected to m ove the court, pursuant to Rule 12(e), to req ui re t he pl ai nt iff

to fil e a m or e d efi ni te st at em en t. Where . . . the pla int if

f as se rt s m

ult ipl e cl ai m s f

or r el ie f, am or e de fi nit e state m en t, if

pr ope rl y dr awn, w ill pr es en t e ac h c la im f or r el ie f in a se parate c ount , a s r equir ed by Ru le 10( b) , and w ithsuc h c lari ty and precision that the defendant will be able to discern what the plaintiff is c la im ing and t o f

ram e a re spon siv e ple ad ing . Mo re ove r, w iththe shot gun ple ad ing out

of the w ay , the tr ia l j udge w ill be r el ie ve d of “ the c um be rs om e ta sk o f sif

tin g th ro ugh m

yri ad c la im s, m an y

of w hic h [ m ay

be ] f or ec los ed by [ vari ous] de fe nse s. ” F ull m anv. Gr addick, 739 F.2d 553, 557 (11th Cir. 1984 ). E xperience teac hes that, unl es s c as es are ple d c le ar ly and p re ci se ly , iss ue s are not j oin ed , discovery is not cont rolled, the trial court’ s docket becom es unm an ag ea

ble , the li tig an ts s uf

fe r, and s oc ie ty

los es c onf

ide nc e in the court’ s ability

to adm inister justice. A nde rs on v . D ist . Bd . of

T rs . of Ce nt. F la . Cm

ty . Co ll. , 77 F . 3d 3 64, 366 -6 7 ( 11th Cir. 1996 ) (f

ootn ote om itted). Be ckw ith ’ s c om

pla int s w er e es se nti al ly

“ shot gun” ple ad ing s. O nly af ewof he r cl ai m s w er e spe ci fi c as to an y de fe ndant, and the r el ev an t f ac ts w er e not7

se gr eg at ed

to ea chof

the ir r es pe ct ive c la im s. I t i s vi rt ua lly im poss ibl e to a sc er

ta in what f actual allegations correspond with each claim and which claim

is directed at which defe ndant. W e do not require the district court, or the def endants, to “ sift thr oughthe f

ac ts p re se nte d and d ec ide f or [ its el f] w hic h w er e m at er ia l t o th e particular ca

use of action asserted.” Strategic Incom e Fund, L .L .C. v. S pear, L ee ds & K el log g C or

p. , 305 F . 3d 1 293, 129 6 n. 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ( ci ta tio ns om itt ed ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n w he n it or de re d B ec kw ith to f ile am or e de fi nit e state m en t; that or de r fo llo w ed e xa ct ly the a dvi ce of

thi s Co urt. S ee A nde rs on, 77 F . 3d at 36 6- 67. B . M oti on f or C lar ifi ca tio n Be ckw ithne xt arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

w he n it did not r es pond to her m otion for the court to issue a w ritten order to clar ify its verbal order given at the schedulin g conference . W e re view this claim for abuse of discre tion. See Br ow n v. T hom

pson , 430 F . 2d 1 214, 121 6 ( 5thCi r. 197 0) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d not abus e its discretion when it failed to issue another written order. T he district co urt ha d a lr ea dy

e xpl ai ne d to Be ckw iththe r el ev an t r ule s of c ivi l pr oc ed

ur e to i n it s Se pt em

be r 22 , 20 03 , ord er.

C. D ism iss al a s Sa nc tio n O n am oti on b y

the de fe ndant, adis tr ic t c ourt m ay dis m iss ac om

pla int f or8

failure to prosecute or to obey a court order or feder al rule. Fed. R. Civ. P . 41(b). The pow er to dism iss is an inh erent aspect of the authorityof the court to enforce its orders and insu re prom pt disp ositio n of lawsuits. S ee L ink v. W abash R.R . Co . , 370 U . S. 626 , 630 -3 1, 82 S . Ct . 138 6, 138 8- 89 ( 1962 ); Jon es v. G raha m , 709 F. 2d 1 457, 145 8 ( 11th C ir . 198 3) . B ec au se dis m iss al w ithpr ej udi ce is a dr as tic sanc tio n, adis tr ic t c ourt m ay im pose it onl y a s ala st r es ort, w he n: ( 1) the f ai lur e to co m ply w ithac ourt or de r is a

r es ult of w ill fu lne ss o r ba d f

ai th, se e BankA tlanti c v. Bl ythe E as tm anP ai ne W eb be r, I nc . , 12 F . 3d 1 045, 104 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) , and (2) the district court specifically finds that lesser sanctions will not suffice, see Grat to n v . GreatAm . Comm un ic at io ns , 17 8 F .3d13 73 , 13 75 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ).

“ T he ta sk o f the r ev ie w ing c ourt i s to de te rm ine w he the r the tr ia l c ourt, in ex er ci sin g it s auth or ity

to dis m iss , abuse d it s di sc re tio n. ” G of orth v . O w en s, 766 F. 2d 15 33, 1535 (11t h Cir. 1985 ). A lth oughw e ag re e that B ec kw ithdid not c om ply w iththe or de rs of

the dis tr ic t c ourt, and the r ec or d sh ow s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt ha s be enpa tie nt w ith Beckw ith, w e cannot aff

irm the dism issal of Beckw ith’s c om plaint with prej udice. T he dis tr ic t c ourt m ad e ne ith er af ind ing of w ilf uln es s or ba d f ai th n or af ind ing t h at a l es s ers an ct i o n wo u l dn o ts u ff i ce . S ee Gr at t o n , 1 7 8 F. 3 dat 1 3 7 5 . We cannot say that B ec kw ith ’ s f

ai lur e to c om

ply w iththe or de rs of

the dis tr ic t c ourt9

wa s a result of bad faith or w ilfulness. T he rec ord shows that Beckwith tw ice am ended her com

plaint in response to the orders of the district court, although h er am en dm en ts w er e sti ll de fi ci en t. W e al so d o no t c onc lud e that the de fe ndants m ust answ er the se co nd am en de d c om

pla int , nor

that the dis tr ic t c ourt m ay not dis m iss the c om

pla int . T he se co nd am en de d c om

pla int is a “ shot gun” ple ad ing , and the dis tr ic t c ourt i s em powere d to rem edy

this so rt of abusive pleading. As to the m ost severe sanc tio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt m ay dis m iss the c om

pla int w ithpr ej udi ce onl y

if it finds that Beckwith’ s failure to com ply is willful or in bad faith and that lesser sanc tio ns w ill not

suf fi ce . B ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t m ak e tho se f ind ing s, it ab us edit s d is cret io n wh en itdi sm is se d t he co m pl ai nt wit h p reju di ce. III. C ONC LUS ION Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIRMED I N PART, REVERSED IN PART, an d REMANDED.