Court Opinion

ID: 9388875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 21:00:40.861986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:23.542617
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12637   Document: 23-1    Date Filed: 04/21/2023    Page: 1 of 9

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-12637
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       JAMES ERIC MCDONOUGH,
       VANESSA MCDONOUGH,
                                                Plaintiffs - Appellants,

       versus

       CITY OF HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA,
       GEORGE GRETSAS,
       HOMESTEAD CHIEF OF POLICE,
       TOM MEAD,
       RICKY RIVERA,
                                              Defendants - Appellees.
                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12637     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/21/2023    Page: 2 of 9

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-12637

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-21538-KMM
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              James and Vanessa McDonough appeal a district court’s
       decision to dismiss their federal claims with prejudice, to refuse to
       exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims, and
       to deny their motion for reconsideration. We affirm. The posture
       of the case—and our resolution—is almost identical to our earlier
       decision in McDonough v. City of Homestead, 771 F. App’x 952
       (11th Cir., May 7, 2019). Even putting aside any new concerns
       about res judicata, the McDonoughs (again) impermissibly refused
       to amend their shotgun pleadings after receiving adequate notice,
       and did not properly argue on appeal why their other federal
       counts stated a claim. Dismissal with prejudice was appropriate.
                                        I.
              Counsel for James and Vanessa McDonough filed the
       complaint on appeal in April 2021, alleging seven counts against the
       City of Homestead and four of its employees. Counts I and II (one
       for each spouse) present § 1983 claims against all five defendants
       (including Monell claims against the city), each premised on alleged
       violations of First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
USCA11 Case: 22-12637     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 04/21/2023    Page: 3 of 9

       22-12637               Opinion of the Court                       3

       Counts III and IV (one for each spouse) allege violations of the
       federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 2721. The
       last three counts assert state law claims.
              The district court granted the defendants’ motions to
       dismiss. By comparing the facts in this complaint to the
       McDonoughs’ previously dismissed actions, it concluded that all
       four federal claims were barred by res judicata. See, e.g.,
       McDonough, 771 F. App’x at 953–54. Alternatively, it held that
       Counts I and II were impermissible shotgun pleadings, and that
       Counts III and IV failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
       granted. The court then declined to exercise supplemental
       jurisdiction to consider the state law claims.
              Unlike the state law counts, the federal claims were
       dismissed with prejudice. The court’s initial order did not explain
       its reasoning for dismissing with prejudice, but did cite our 2019
       unpublished opinion in McDonough. There, we dismissed another
       of the McDonoughs’ complaints with prejudice on shotgun
       pleading grounds after it had been refiled as a separate action. Id.
       at 955–56.      Here, the McDonoughs filed a motion for
       reconsideration, asserting in part that the dismissal with prejudice
       on shotgun pleading grounds was improper without an
       opportunity to amend and notice of the pleading’s deficiencies.
             The district court denied the motion. It discussed (as one of
       several justifications) how the McDonoughs filed their April 2021
       complaint in response to a court order in a separate district court
USCA11 Case: 22-12637      Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 04/21/2023     Page: 4 of 9

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12637

       case. There, in February 2021, the McDonoughs had banded
       together with three other plaintiffs to assert six claims against the
       same five defendants. That district court explained how
       defendants moved to dismiss, alleging that the omnibus complaint
       “is a shotgun pleading and fails to state a claim upon which relief
       can be granted.” Plaintiffs did not respond to the motions. So the
       court issued an order offering plaintiffs the “opportunity to cure
       the purported pleading defects” by granting them leave to amend
       or to sever. The McDonoughs opted for severance, filed the instant
       complaint by the court-appointed severance deadline in April, and
       were dismissed from the February action the next day.
              They now appeal the district court’s dismissal with prejudice
       of their April 2021 complaint, and its denial of reconsideration.
       They are pursuing their appeal pro se.
                                        II.
              We review a district court’s application of res judicata de
       novo. Griswold v. Cnty. of Hillsborough, 598 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th
       Cir. 2010). Dismissals for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule
       of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) are also reviewed de novo. Magluta v.
       Samples, 375 F.3d 1269, 1273 (11th Cir. 2004). We review
       dismissals on shotgun pleading grounds for abuse of discretion.
       Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2018).
       Likewise, we consider a district court’s denial of a motion to
       reconsider for abuse of discretion. Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d
       734, 740 (11th Cir. 2010).
USCA11 Case: 22-12637     Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/21/2023    Page: 5 of 9

       22-12637               Opinion of the Court                        5

                                       III.
              On appeal, the McDonoughs mostly contest the district
       court’s application of res judicata. But even if they (somehow)
       succeeded in arguing that all four claims were not precluded, we
       would still affirm.
              There is no discussion in the McDonoughs’ initial appellate
       brief about the alternate holding that, even if not precluded,
       Counts III and IV failed to state a claim. They only contested that
       point in their reply brief after the defendants discussed it. The
       McDonoughs’ arguments came too late and are consequently
       abandoned, so we affirm the dismissal of Counts III and IV. United
       States v. Levy, 379 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir. 2004).
              And we agree with the district court that Counts I and II are
       “classic” examples of shotgun pleadings. Most obviously, each
       count asserts complaints against five defendants—one of whom is
       a city and would be subject to Monell liability, unlike the other
       § 1983 claims asserted against the four individuals. We construe
       complaints that do not separate “into a different count each cause
       of action or claim for relief” as shotgun pleadings. Weiland v. Palm
       Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015).
       Besides the fact that all defendants are lumped together, there is no
       specificity as to who is responsible for certain acts or omissions.
       See id. at 1323 & n.14. Each count alleges First, Fourth, and
       Fourteenth Amendment violations. And the counts vacillate
       between holding “each” defendant responsible for the alleged
USCA11 Case: 22-12637     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 04/21/2023    Page: 6 of 9

       6                      Opinion of the Court                22-12637

       constitutional violations, and claiming that only “some” of them
       participated. Overall, the complaint is “replete with conclusory,
       vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any
       particular cause of action.” Id. at 1322; see also id. at 1322 n.12.
       Defendants are often left to guess which of them did what in the
       McDonoughs’ eyes—which is the “unifying characteristic” of all
       shotgun pleadings. Id. at 1323. The district court rightfully
       identified these counts as prohibited pleadings.
             Our precedent states that when “a litigant files a shotgun
       pleading, is represented by counsel, and fails to request leave to
       amend, a district court must sua sponte give him one chance to
       replead before dismissing his case with prejudice on non-merits
       shotgun pleading grounds.” Vibe Micro, 878 F.3d at 1296. In its
       repleading order, the district court “should explain how the
       offending pleading violates the shotgun pleading rule so that the
       party may properly avoid future shotgun pleadings.” Id. Here, the
       McDonoughs were represented by counsel, filed a shotgun
       pleading, and did not request leave to amend before the dismissal.
       But even though there is only one complaint on the docket before
       us, the McDonoughs titled it the “AMENDED COMPLAINT”
       because even they agreed that they had the requisite notice and
       chance to replead.
           We have encountered this same situation before. See
       McDonough, 771 F. App’x at 955–56. There, we held that
       “McDonough received notice of his complaint’s defects through
USCA11 Case: 22-12637         Document: 23-1        Date Filed: 04/21/2023         Page: 7 of 9

       22-12637                   Opinion of the Court                               7

       the defendants’ motions to dismiss in McDonough I and
       acknowledged those defects by failing to oppose defendants’
       motions to dismiss in that case.” Id. at 956 (citing Jackson v. Bank
       of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1358–59 (11th Cir. 2018)). Thus “when
       McDonough refiled his lawsuit, it was his second chance to file a
       permissible, amended complaint.” Id. So too here. And the slight
       factual differences here actually cut against the McDonoughs—for
       example, the repleading order in the February 2021 lawsuit
       explicitly discusses shotgun pleadings, unlike the initial order we
       addressed in our earlier unpublished opinion. 1 Id. at 953–54.
             That unpublished case’s approach has firm roots in our
       published precedent. In Jackson, we stated that the chance to
       amend a complaint contemplated in Vibe Micro may “come in the
       form of a dismissal without prejudice.” Jackson, 898 F.3d at 1358.
       More broadly, we held that what matters is “function, not form:
       the key is whether the plaintiff had fair notice of the defects and a

       1 The only other noteworthy factual difference is that in our earlier 2019 case,
       McDonough filed a motion for leave to amend his initial complaint, which
       was granted. McDonough, 771 F. App’x at 953. But that fact is legally
       irrelevant. McDonough never actually amended his complaint, leading to a
       dismissal without prejudice (with no mention of shotgun pleading concerns).
       Id. at 953–54. McDonough then filed a second separate complaint, which was
       dismissed on shotgun pleading grounds. Id. at 954. It was the opportunity to
       file that second complaint—coupled with the notice about shotgun pleading
       concerns from the defendants’ motions-to-dismiss in the initial action—that
       supplied the requisite notice and chance to amend contemplated in Vibe
       Micro. All of that is present in the case before us today.
USCA11 Case: 22-12637      Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 04/21/2023     Page: 8 of 9

       8                       Opinion of the Court                  22-12637

       meaningful chance to fix them. If that chance is afforded and the
       plaintiff fails to remedy the defects, the district court does not abuse
       its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice.” Id. It does not
       matter whether the severance order in the initial action was
       stylized as a dismissal without prejudice or not—what matters
       under Jackson is that it enabled the McDonoughs to refile. And
       when plaintiffs “did not oppose Defendants’ motions” raising
       shotgun pleading concerns, “their failure to oppose operated as an
       acknowledgement of these defects.” Id.
              As in Jackson and our 2019 case involving McDonough, no
       further notice or explanation from either district court was
       required for a dismissal with prejudice to be proper. Because the
       McDonoughs had an opportunity to amend and were on notice
       about shotgun pleading concerns—and nevertheless chose to refile
       defective claims in the complaint under review—we affirm its
       dismissal with prejudice.
              When all federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, we have
       “encouraged” district courts to dismiss state law claims rather than
       exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370
       F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004). The district court did not err by
       dismissing the McDonoughs’ three remaining state law claims
       here. Nor did it abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration
       given the lack of any newly discovered evidence or manifest errors
       of law or fact. Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007).
USCA11 Case: 22-12637    Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 04/21/2023   Page: 9 of 9

       22-12637              Opinion of the Court                      9

                                *      *      *
              We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of the
       McDonoughs’ federal claims with prejudice, and its decision not to
       exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.