[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-14053

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

HAROLD JEAN-BAPTISTE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS, 

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ, JR., 

a.k.a. Tony, 

in his individual capacity and official capacity as 

United States Attorney, et. al.,

USCA11 Case: 23-14053 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2024 Page: 1 of 9
2 Opinion of the Court 23-14053

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-22531-JEM

____________________

____________________

No. 24-10110

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

HAROLD JEAN-BAPTISTE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS,

DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATIONS, 

CIVIL PROCESS CLERK FOR THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S 

OFFICE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT 

USCA11 Case: 23-14053 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2024 Page: 2 of 9
23-14053 Opinion of the Court 3

OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-22761-KMM

____________________

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

PER CURIAM:

Harold Jean-Baptiste, proceeding pro se, filed two separate 

amended complaints1 alleging various statutory and constitutional 

violations based on his allegations that the government has 

conspired to injure or kill him. He appeals following the district 

court’s dismissals of his amended complaints as shotgun pleadings

1 This is a consolidated appeal arising from two separate orders from two 

different district court judges for the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of Florida, dismissing Jean-Baptiste’s operative pro se complaints. (See

CM/ECF for the 11th Cir., case no. 23-14053; CM/ECF for the U.S. Dist. Ct. 

for S.D. Fla, case no. 1:23-cv-22531-JEM (“Jean-Baptiste I”)); (see also CM/ECF 

for the 11th Cir., case no. 24-10110; CM/ECF for the U.S. Dist. Ct. for S.D. 

Fla, case no. 1:23-cv-22761-KMM (“Jean-Baptiste II”)). These separate civil 

proceedings in the district court were consolidated on appeal as they concern 

similar defendants and a similar factual background. 

USCA11 Case: 23-14053 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2024 Page: 3 of 9
4 Opinion of the Court 23-14053

and as frivolous. On appeal, he argues that the district courts

improperly dismissed his cases based on judicial bias, denied his 

First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of 

grievances, and inaccurately applied the law. He also requests that 

we enter default judgment against the defendants.

We review the district court’s dismissal of a complaint on 

shotgun pleading grounds for abuse of discretion. Weiland v. Palm 

Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). A 

district court’s exercise of its inherent powers is reviewed for abuse 

of discretion. Pedraza v. United Guar. Corp., 313 F.3d 1323, 1328 

(11th Cir. 2002). “Discretion means that the district court has a 

range of choice, and that its decision will not be disturbed as long 

as it stays within that range and is not influenced by any mistake of 

law.” Betty K Agencies, LTD v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 

(11th Cir. 2005).

A shotgun pleading violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), which 

requires that a complaint contain a short, plain statement of the 

claim showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, or Rule 10(b), 

which requires that a party state his claims or defenses in numbered 

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

circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 10(b); Weiland, 792 F.3d at 

1320.

We have recognized four categories of shotgun pleadings, 

including complaints that: (1) contain multiple counts where each 

count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts; (2) are “replete 

with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously 

USCA11 Case: 23-14053 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2024 Page: 4 of 9
23-14053 Opinion of the Court 5

connected to any particular cause of action”; (3) do not separate 

each cause of action or claim for relief into separate counts; or (4) 

assert multiple claims against multiple defendants without 

specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts 

or omissions. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321-23. 

Still, a district court can dismiss a complaint on shotgun 

pleading grounds under its “inherent authority to control its docket 

and ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits.” Vibe Micro Inc. v. 

Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018); see also Bank v. Pitt, 

928 F.2d 1108, 112 (11th Cir. 1991), overruled in part by Wagner v. 

Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am. Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542 & n.1 (11th Cir. 

2002) (en banc) (holding that a pro se plaintiff must generally be 

given “one chance to amend the complaint before the district court 

dismisses the action [under Rule 12(b)(6)] with prejudice,” unless 

such an amendment would be futile). 

Our precedent allows a district court to dismiss an action 

under its inherent powers that is so patently lacking in merit as to 

be frivolous when the party that brought the case has been given 

notice and an opportunity to respond. Jefferson Fourteenth Associates 

v. Wometco de Puerto Rico, Inc., 695 F.2d 524, 526 & n.3 (11th Cir. 

1983). An exception exists when amending the complaint would 

be futile, or when the complaint is patently frivolous. Surtain v. 

Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1248 (11th Cir. 2015).

Frivolous claims include claims describing “fantastic or 

delusional scenarios.” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 

2001) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989)) (defining 

USCA11 Case: 23-14053 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2024 Page: 5 of 9
6 Opinion of the Court 23-14053

frivolity in the context of in forma pauperis proceedings). We 

review frivolity determinations for abuse of discretion because 

they are “best left to the district court.” Id. “A claim is frivolous if 

it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Id. A court may 

consider “a litigant’s history of bringing unmeritorious litigation” 

when determining frivolousness. Id. at 1350. A court need not 

presume that the facts alleged in the complaint are true if they are 

“far-fetched or baseless.” Cofield v. Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 

936 F.2d 512, 515 (11th Cir. 1991). “Conclusory allegations fail to 

apprise defendants of the factual basis of the plaintiff’s claims.” 

Franklin v. Curry, 738 F.3d 1246, 1250 (11th Cir. 2013).

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed and held to less 

stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers, but they must 

still suggest some factual basis for a claim. Jones v. Fla. Parole 

Comm’n, 787 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2015). 

Issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned. Access 

Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). 

Issues not raised in an initial brief are deemed abandoned. United 

States v. Levy, 379 F.3d 1241, 1242-45 (11th Cir. 2004). 

An appellant fails to adequately brief a claim when he does 

not “plainly and prominently raise it.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian 

Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks 

omitted). Further, when a district court order is based on multiple, 

independent grounds, an appellant must demonstrate that “every 

stated ground for the judgment against him is incorrect.” Id. at 

680. “When an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one 

USCA11 Case: 23-14053 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2024 Page: 6 of 9
23-14053 Opinion of the Court 7

of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment, he 

is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it 

follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.” Id.

In civil cases, we will generally not consider an issue not 

raised in the district court. Burch v. P.J. Cheese, Inc., 861 F.3d 1338, 

1352 (11th Cir. 2017). To preserve a claim or argument, a party 

must first present it to the district court in a manner that gives the 

court an opportunity to recognize and rule on it. Gennusa v. 

Canova, 748 F.3d 1103, 1116 (11th Cir. 2014). If a party failed to 

invoke a federal recusal statute to the district court, review is for 

plain error. Hamm v. Members of Bd. Of Regents, 708 F.2d 647, 651 

(11th Cir. 1983). Under the plain error standard, an appellant must 

show that there was (1) an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) the error 

affected his substantial rights. See Higgs v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. Co., 

969 F.3d 1295, 1307 (11th Cir. 2020). Further, judicial rulings alone 

almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. 

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

Local Rule 3-1 states that the failure to object to a magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation waives the right to challenge 

on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual 

and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the period for 

objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. 11th 

Cir. R. 3-1. In such instances, we “may review for plain error if 

necessary in the interest of justice.” Id. 

USCA11 Case: 23-14053 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2024 Page: 7 of 9
8 Opinion of the Court 23-14053

Here, we conclude that Jean-Baptiste has abandoned any 

challenge to the district court’s dismissals of his amended 

complaints because he failed to challenge, on appeal, the grounds 

relied upon by the courts in their dismissal orders, specifically that 

his amended complaints constituted impermissible shotgun 

pleadings and contained frivolous and fantastical allegations. He 

also waived any challenge to the court’s dismissal of his operative

complaint in Jean-Baptiste II because he failed to file objections to

the magistrate judge’s conclusions. 

Assuming that the arguments were not abandoned, we also 

conclude that the district courts did not abuse their discretion by 

dismissing Jean-Baptiste’s amended complaints. First, the 

amended complaints constituted shotgun pleadings as they raised 

multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying 

which claim was against which defendant, they did not reference 

which acts or omissions were committed by which defendant for 

which claim, and they contained conclusory and vague language. 

Second, Jean-Baptiste failed to argue on appeal that he should have 

been granted leave to amend his complaints before dismissal, and 

any amendment would have been futile. In addition, we also 

conclude that the district courts did not abuse their discretion by 

dismissing his amended complaints as patently frivolous because 

they contained allegations that an unknown Federal Bureau of 

Investigation agent worked with various entities to conspire to kill 

him through the ingestion of toxic substances at Publix and Target, 

and the district court is best positioned to determine frivolity. For 

his arguments related to judicial bias, he failed to preserve this issue 

USCA11 Case: 23-14053 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2024 Page: 8 of 9
23-14053 Opinion of the Court 9

as he did not raise it below and he cannot show that any error was 

plain and affected his substantial rights. Finally, his request for 

default judgment is not proper because the defendants have not 

failed to comply with this Court’s rules.

We thus affirm in this consolidated appeal the two separate 

district court orders dismissing Jean-Baptiste’s amended 

complaints.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-14053 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 09/20/2024 Page: 9 of 9