Court Opinion

ID: 9927300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 19:00:56.453578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:20.399987
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13962    Document: 37-1     Date Filed: 01/26/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13962
                          ____________________

       CRAIG BENT,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       KEVIN WILSON,
       Detective,
       ROBERT RILEY,
       Detective,

                                                  Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-13962      Document: 37-1       Date Filed: 01/26/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13962

                   D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cv-00075-WWB-EJK
                          ____________________

       Before WILSON, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Plaintiff-Appellant Craig Bent appeals the district court’s dis-
       missal of his complaint alleging multiple claims under 42 U.S.C.
       § 1983 against Defendants-Appellees Kevin Wilson and Robert Ri-
       ley. The district court found that, even after amending his com-
       plaint, Bent had not complied with its order to correct his shotgun
       pleading “despite a clear directive from the Court.” Therefore, as
       warned in the district court’s previous order, Bent’s second
       amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice. Bent moved for
       leave to file a third amended complaint, which the district court
       denied. After careful consideration of the record, the parties’ briefs,
       and with the benefit of oral argument, we find reversible error in
       the district court’s dismissal of Bent’s complaint with prejudice.
              Bent argues many issues related to his complaint’s dismissal,
       but one rises above the rest—the sanction of dismissal with preju-
       dice. This is an extreme sanction, and we have held that dismissals
       with prejudice are “justified only in extreme circumstances and as
       a last resort.” Wouters v. Martin Cnty., 9 F.3d 924, 933 (11th Cir.
       1993). We find that this is not an extreme circumstance, and that
       the district court improperly imposed this extreme sanction here
       when sanctions less severe than dismissal with prejudice, such as
       attorney’s fees, would have been appropriate. However, we leave
USCA11 Case: 22-13962      Document: 37-1       Date Filed: 01/26/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       22-13962                Opinion of the Court                          3

       the ultimate lesser sanctions determination within the sound dis-
       cretion of the able district judge.
              The third amended complaint is not a shotgun pleading,
       complies with the district court’s prior directives, and sufficiently
       alleges a cause of action for relief. As such, this complaint will serve
       as the operative pleading in the case.
             For the reasons stated above, we reverse the district court’s
       dismissal of Bent’s seconded amended complaint with prejudice.
              REVERSED.