Court Opinion

ID: 9892315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 16:01:01.736556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:04.274085
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12365    Document: 56-1     Date Filed: 10/23/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12365
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       REGINALD DAWSON,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       CITY OF JACKSONVILLE,
       Jacksonville Sheriﬀ's Oﬃce, Municipal
       Code Compliance,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-12365     Document: 56-1     Date Filed: 10/23/2023   Page: 2 of 5

       2                     Opinion of the Court                22-12365

                   D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-01041-HES-LLL
                         ____________________

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Reginald Dawson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
       court’s order dismissing with prejudice his amended complaint
       against the City of Jacksonville as an impermissible shotgun plead-
       ing. After careful review, we affirm.
                                       I.
              Dawson initially filed this action against the city in state
       court. The city removed the action to federal court and then
       moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it was a shotgun
       pleading. The district court agreed and granted the motion to dis-
       miss but allowed Dawson to file an amended complaint.
              After Dawson filed an amended complaint, the city again
       moved to dismiss on the basis that Dawson had filed a shotgun
       pleading. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the
       action with prejudice. It explained that the amended complaint was
       a shotgun pleading because it was “replete with conclusory, vague,
       and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular
       cause of action” and also “assert[ed] multiple claims against
USCA11 Case: 22-12365        Document: 56-1         Date Filed: 10/23/2023   Page: 3 of 5

       22-12365                  Opinion of the Court                         3

       multiple defendants without specifying which claims are against
       which defendants.” Doc. 22 at 2 (internal quotation marks omit-
       ted). 1
              This is Dawson’s appeal.
                                             II.
               We review the dismissal of a complaint as a shotgun plead-
       ing for abuse of discretion. Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d
       1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2018). Although pro se pleadings are held to
       less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by lawyers, issues
       not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.
       Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
                                            III.
              On appeal, Dawson does not argue that the district court
       erred in dismissing his amended complaint as a shotgun pleading.
       He has therefore abandoned the issue. See Timson 518 F.3d at 874.
       Even if Dawson had not abandoned this issue, however, we would
       conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dis-
       missing the amended complaint as a shotgun pleading.
              The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a complaint to
       contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
       pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In addition, the
       complaint must “state its claims . . . in numbered paragraphs, each
       limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed.

       1 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
USCA11 Case: 22-12365      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 10/23/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12365

       R. Civ. P. 10(b). The purpose of these rules is “to require the
       pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly, so that, his
       adversary can discern what he is claiming and frame a responsive
       pleading.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313,
       1320 (11th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
               Complaints that violate these rules are often referred to as
       “shotgun pleadings.” Id. A shotgun pleading “fail[s] . . . to give the
       defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the
       grounds upon which each claim rests” and “waste[s] scarce judicial
       resources, inexorably broaden[s] the scope of discovery, wreak[s]
       havoc on appellate court dockets, and undermine[s] the public’s re-
       spect for the courts.” Shabanets, 878 F.3d at 1295 (internal quotation
       marks omitted). We have identified four categories of shotgun
       pleadings: (1) those that “contain[] multiple counts where each
       count adopts all allegations of all preceding counts;” (2) those that
       are “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obvi-
       ously connected to any particular cause of action;” (3) those that
       fail to “separat[e] into a different count each cause of action or
       claim for relief”; and (4) those that “assert[] multiple claims against
       multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants are
       responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the defendants
       the claim is brought against.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321–23.
              A district court has the inherent authority to dismiss a com-
       plaint on shotgun-pleading grounds. Shabanets, 878 F.3d at 1295.
       When a plaintiff files a shotgun pleading and fails to request leave
USCA11 Case: 22-12365        Document: 56-1       Date Filed: 10/23/2023        Page: 5 of 5

       22-12365                 Opinion of the Court                              5

       to amend, a district court must sua sponte provide him with one
       chance to replead before dismissing the case with prejudice. Id.
               Here, the district court correctly concluded that Dawson’s
       amended complaint was a shotgun pleading. A review of the
       amended complaint shows that it consisted of conclusory, vague,
       and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular
       cause of action. See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1322. Further, because the
       district court provided Dawson with an opportunity to amend his
       complaint to address the deficiencies that it had previously identi-
       fied and Dawson failed to do so, the court did not abuse its discre-
       tion when it dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. 2
              AFFIRMED

       2 Dawson also filed several motions with this Court requesting that a federal
       court rehear several cases brought against him regarding compliance with
       Jacksonville’s municipal code. The motions are DENIED.