Court Opinion

ID: 9456732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:01:09.634876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:58.685928
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14235    Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 08/04/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-14235
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       TAMIKO N. PEELE,
       Individually on Behalf of Themselves,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
       COMPANY,
       A Division of State Farm, Through Its Claim No. 59-33N5-00H
       and Claim No. 59-33N5-4L, in their Oﬃcial and Individual Capac-
       ity,
       C/O Chief Financial Oﬃcer,
       ST. LUCIE MEDICAL CENTER URGENT CARE,
       A Division of HCA Florida St. Lucie Hospital,
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.,
USCA11 Case: 22-14235     Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 08/04/2023    Page: 2 of 6

       2                     Opinion of the Court                 22-14235

       Through Its United States Postal Service Inc., Its Postmaster Gen-
       eral Louis Dejoy, Matthew Celona, Mail Handlers, and Mail Carri-
       ers for 4001 SW Melbourne Street, Port Saint Lucie, FL 34953,
       and Does 1-3 Inclusive in their Individual Capacity,
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.,
       Through its United States Postal Service, Inc., Its Postmaster Gen-
       eral Louis Dejoy, Michael V. Vechitto, Mail Handlers and Mail
       Carriers for P.O. Box 8106, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310 Does 1-
       3 Inclusive in their Individual Capacity,
       UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al.,

                                                    Defendants-Appellees.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-14386-AMC
                          ____________________

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Tamiko Peele, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
       dismissal of her complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading,
       its order denying her motion to remand and recuse the district
USCA11 Case: 22-14235      Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 08/04/2023     Page: 3 of 6

       22-14235               Opinion of the Court                         3

       court judge, and its order denying her motion to certify an inter-
       locutory appeal. The United States and St. Lucie Medical Center
       Urgent Care (“St. Lucie Medical Center”) respond by moving for
       summary affirmance of the district court’s orders, arguing that
       Peele abandoned her challenges to the orders by failing to raise
       them in her initial brief and that the orders were correct on the
       merits.
              Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
       the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
       sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
       or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a
       matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
       outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the
       appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,
       1162 (5th Cir. 1969). A motion for summary aﬃrmance postpones
       the due date for the ﬁling of any remaining brief until we rule on
       the motion. 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c).
               We review the dismissal of a shotgun pleading on Fed. R.
       Civ. P. 8(a)(2) or 10(b) grounds for abuse of discretion. Weiland v.
       Palm Beach Cnty. Sherriﬀ’s Oﬀ., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015).
       The denial of a motion for recusal is also reviewed for abuse of
       discretion. In re Walker, 532 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2008). Under
       the abuse-of-discretion standard, we must aﬃrm unless we ﬁnd
       that the district court made a clear error of judgment or applied
       the wrong legal standard. Rance v. Rocksolid Granit USA, Inc., 583
       F.3d 1284, 1286 (11th Cir. 2009). The denial of a motion to remand
USCA11 Case: 22-14235       Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 08/04/2023      Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Opinion of the Court                   22-14235

       to state court is reviewed de novo. Henderson v. Washington Nat’l Ins.
       Co., 454 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir. 2006).
               Although we construe pleadings ﬁled by pro se parties liber-
       ally, pro se litigants are still required to conform to procedural rules.
       Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007). A pro se ap-
       pellant abandons a claim when she fails to raise it in her initial brief,
       makes only passing references to it, or raises it in a perfunctory
       manner without supporting arguments and authority. Sapuppo v.
       Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680-81, 683 (11th Cir. 2014).
              A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
       the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.
       P. 8(a)(2). Further, claims should be stated “in numbered para-
       graphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circum-
       stances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
              We have identiﬁed four categories of shotgun pleadings—
       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 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, or which of
       the defendants the claim is brought against. Weiland, 792 F.3d at
       1321-23. The unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun plead-
       ings is that they fail to one degree or another “to give the
USCA11 Case: 22-14235     Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 08/04/2023    Page: 5 of 6

       22-14235               Opinion of the Court                        5

       defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the
       grounds upon which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323.
              A district court can dismiss a complaint on shotgun pleading
       grounds under its “inherent authority to control its docket and en-
       sure the prompt resolution of lawsuits.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Sha-
       banets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omit-
       ted). In such cases, we have required the district court to allow the
       litigant one chance to remedy the deﬁciency before dismissing the
       case with prejudice. Id. at 1296.
              Section 1442(a)(1) permits the “United States or any agency
       thereof ” to remove a civil action against it that is commenced in
       state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). A judge has a duty to disqualify
       herself “in any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might rea-
       sonably be questioned.” Id. § 455(a). This includes when she has a
       bias regarding a party. Id. § 455(b).
              Summary aﬃrmance is warranted here because Peele aban-
       doned her challenges to all three orders by failing to adequately
       raise them in her initial brief. Peele clearly abandoned any chal-
       lenge to the order denying certiﬁcation of an interlocutory appeal,
       as she makes no argument about that order in her initial brief or
       her response. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680-81, 683. She also abandoned
       the challenges to the orders dismissing her complaint and denying
       her motion for remand and recusal because she did not argue that
       her complaint was not a shotgun pleading until her response to the
       motions for summary aﬃrmance and made only passing references
       to the orders for remand and recusal, which was insuﬃcient. Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-14235      Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 08/04/2023     Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-14235

              Even if she has not abandoned challenges to the orders dis-
       missing her complaint and denying her motion for remand and
       recusal, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
       her complaint without prejudice because it was a shotgun pleading
       that incorporated allegations from preceding counts. Weiland, 792
       F.3d at 1321-23. It also did not abuse its discretion in denying the
       motion to recuse because it was unclear as to which judge and on
       what grounds Peele requested recusal, so the district court did not
       make a clear error of judgment in denying the motion. Rance, 583
       F.3d at 1286. And the district court did not err in denying the mo-
       tion to remand because a U.S. agency is allowed to remove a case
       to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
              As for Peele’s motion for fees and costs, we deny it because
       Peele did not show that the appellees acted in bad faith.
             Accordingly, because the United States’s and St. Lucie Med-
       ical Center’s position is clearly correct as a matter of law, we
       GRANT the motions for summary aﬃrmance and DENY Peele’s
       motion for fees and costs. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.
             AFFIRMED.