[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12770

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

MAMBERTO REAL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JUDITH MORAN, 

FRANK DIAZ GINES, 

PRESBYTERIAN HOMES & HOUSING 

FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA, INC., 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-12770 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 10/19/2023 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12770

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00926-JLB-KCD

____________________

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mamberto Real, proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s order dismissing, with prejudice, his claims of national 

origin discrimination pursuant to the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 

U.S.C. § 3604; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. §

2000d; and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617. He asserts

the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his complaint 

as a shotgun pleading. He maintains the dismissal was improper 

due to an earlier grant of leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) 

that he asserts creates a conflict of interpretation between a 

magistrate judge and the district court. After review, we affirm the 

district court.

Shotgun pleadings “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.” Vibe Micro Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 

2008) (quotation marks and alterations omitted). Shotgun 

pleadings include 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 

USCA11 Case: 22-12770 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 10/19/2023 Page: 2 of 5
22-12770 Opinion of the Court 3

obviously 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 v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 

F.3d 1313, 1321-23 (11th Cir. 2015). All these types of shotgun 

pleadings are characterized by their failure “to give the defendants 

adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon 

which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing 

Real’s complaint as a shotgun pleading. See id. at 1320 (reviewing

the district court’s dismissal of a complaint on shotgun pleading 

grounds for abuse of discretion). As the district court found, Real’s 

complaint has aspects of the first and second forms of shotgun 

pleadings as each count adopts allegations of the preceding counts 

and the complaint contains vague and conclusory allegations. 

The complaint contained seven counts, each 

reincorporating by reference the allegations set out in paragraphs 

1 through 36. While the reincorporations appear to be limited to 

the “factual allegations” portion of his complaint, the last five 

paragraphs (paragraphs 32 through 36) of Real’s factual allegations 

are legal conclusions, and Real merges the same legal claims into 

each of the seven counts. Thus, by realleging paragraphs 32 

through 36 into each count of the complaint, Real cumulatively 

restates allegations of retaliation and discrimination throughout his 

complaint, making it “virtually impossible to know which 

USCA11 Case: 22-12770 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 10/19/2023 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12770

allegations . . . are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.” 

See Anderson v. District Bd. of Trustees of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 

364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996).

Real’s complaint also contained conclusory and vague 

language and facts that could not be clearly attributed to any 

particular cause of action. See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1322. Real 

alleged retaliation during the rental process throughout his 

complaint. Stating a claim for retaliatory housing discrimination 

requires a plaintiff to allege the defendants coerced, intimidated, 

threatened, or interfered with his exercise of rights under the FHA. 

42 U.S.C. § 3617. Real pleads the elements of a claim under § 3617 

without explaining how the facts of his case correlate to the 

elements of the cause of action. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of 

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). 

Additionally, the many unsupported assertions within the 

complaint fail to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims 

against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests. See 

Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323. 

The district court did not err by dismissing Real’s complaint 

and exercising its inherent authority to control its dockets. See Vibe 

Micro Inc., 878 F.3d at 1295 (“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.” (quotation marks omitted)). The 

instant complaint represents Real’s fourth attempt to cure his 

USCA11 Case: 22-12770 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 10/19/2023 Page: 4 of 5
22-12770 Opinion of the Court 5

defective complaint, taking into account three complaints he filed 

in an earlier, almost identical proceeding, followed by the present 

suit. The record supports that Real received ample guidance from 

both the magistrate judge and the district court as to how to 

organize his pleadings. 

Moreover, Real does not argue on appeal that the district 

court should not have dismissed the complaint without first 

granting him leave to amend it, so any issue in that respect is 

forfeited. See United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 871-72 (11th 

Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 95 (2022) (explaining issues 

not raised in a brief are forfeited). Likewise, Real asked the district 

court to dismiss his instant complaint with prejudice if it deemed 

the filing a shotgun pleading, so he could seek review from this 

Court. In any event, his litigation history suggests that any further 

attempt to amend would have been futile. Finally, the magistrate 

judge’s determination that Real could proceed IFP did not preclude 

a later determination to dismiss the complaint. See Cofield v. Ala. 

Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512, 515 (11th Cir. 1991) (recognizing 

that despite the fact a court may have reviewed a complaint and 

granted IFP status when the complaint was initially filed, the court 

may dismiss the complaint at a later date if the court determines 

the action is frivolous). Accordingly, we affirm.1

AFFIRMED.

1 We DENY Real’s Motion to Expedite Appeal as moot.

USCA11 Case: 22-12770 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 10/19/2023 Page: 5 of 5