Court Opinion

ID: 9403770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 17:01:14.166199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:09.317410
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10550   Document: 26-1    Date Filed: 06/21/2023    Page: 1 of 8

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-10550
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       LARAEL-KARRIS OWENS,
                                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,
       K. L. O.
       a minor child,
       L. Z. O.
       a minor child,
                                                             Plaintiffs,
       versus
       FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
       FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
       in her official capacity,

                                               Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 22-10550      Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 06/21/2023     Page: 2 of 8

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10550

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-00510-MMH-MCR
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Larael-Karris Owens, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
       court’s dismissal with prejudice of his second amended complaint.
       The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte as an imper-
       missible shotgun pleading, in violation of Federal Rules of Civil
       Procedure 8(a)(2) and 10(b), after Mr. Owens failed to remedy the
       pleading deficiencies identified by the district court on two separate
       occasions. After review, we affirm.
                                         I
              We review the dismissal of a shotgun pleading for failure to
       comply with Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b) for abuse of discretion. See
       Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th
       Cir. 2015). Although we construe pro se complaints more liberally
       than complaints drafted by attorneys, we nevertheless require that
       pro se litigants comply with the same governing rules and proce-
       dures as litigants represented by attorneys. See Albra v. Advan,
       Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).
USCA11 Case: 22-10550       Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 06/21/2023      Page: 3 of 8

       22-10550                Opinion of the Court                           3

               As relevant here, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure re-
       quire that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the
       claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P.
       8(a)(2), and that the claims therein be made “in numbered para-
       graphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circum-
       stances,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). A shotgun pleading typically vio-
       lates at least one of these two rules and as a result, fails “to give the
       defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the
       grounds upon which each claim rests.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323.
              We have identified four categories of shotgun pleadings: (1)
       “a complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts
       the allegations of all preceding counts;” (2) a complaint that is “re-
       plete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously
       connected to any particular cause of action;” (3) a complaint that
       does “not separate[e] into a different count each cause of action or
       claim for relief;” and (4) a complaint that “assert[s] multiple claims
       against multiple defendants without specifying which of the de-
       fendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of
       the defendants the claim is brought against.” Id. at 1321–23.
               Where a complaint falls under any one or more of these four
       categories, we generally require that the district court allow the lit-
       igant at least one chance to remedy the deficiencies. See Wagner
       v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273, 1280 (11th Cir. 2006).
       Here, Mr. Owens was given two opportunities.
USCA11 Case: 22-10550      Document: 26-1         Date Filed: 06/21/2023   Page: 4 of 8

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-10550

                                             II
              In May of 2021, Mr. Owens filed a civil action on behalf of
       himself and his two minor children against the Florida Department
       of Revenue and Attorney General Ashley Moody in her official ca-
       pacity. In his complaint, Mr. Owens appeared to challenge certain
       child support enforcement and wage garnishment laws, while re-
       questing that he be given full custody of his children and that his
       family be removed from the Social Security Program. Mr. Owens’
       complaint was far from clear, spanning 24 pages of unnumbered,
       lengthy paragraphs and 43 pages of exhibits not addressed in the
       complaint.
              Mr. Owens sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. A
       magistrate judge reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
       1915(e)(2)(B) and determined, in relevant part, that it failed to com-
       ply with Rules 8 and 10. Finding the complaint to be “a rambling
       discourse [of] legal articles, cases, statutes, and texts” that included
       “voluminous exhibits with no reasonable explanation as to their
       relevancy,” the magistrate judge instructed Mr. Owens to file an
       amended complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules. See
       D.E. 3 at 5. In doing so, the magistrate judge highlighted the re-
       quirements that the complaint contain “a short and plain state-
       ment” of the claims being raised and that each paragraph be num-
       bered and “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circum-
       stances.” See id. at 7–8 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) & 10(b)). The
       magistrate judge further noted that Mr. Owens failed to raise any
       allegations that specifically implicated the defendants in the case
USCA11 Case: 22-10550      Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 06/21/2023     Page: 5 of 8

       22-10550                Opinion of the Court                         5

       and instructed Mr. Owens to “state the constitutional or federal law
       that each defendant violated” in his amended complaint. See id.
              Mr. Owens filed an amended complaint in July of 2021. But
       like the original complaint, the amended complaint failed to sepa-
       rate each claim or cause of action into different counts and failed to
       state the claims in an intelligible manner.
               In its dismissal order, the district court described the
       amended complaint as “a confusing combination of facts, legal
       analysis, and bare accusations” that failed to give the defendants
       adequate notice of the claims against them. See D.E. 20 at 5. The
       district court further explained that this manner of pleading failed
       to comply with Rules 8 and 10 and the requirements outlined in
       the magistrate judge’s order. See id. Accordingly, the district court
       struck the amended complaint but allowed Mr. Owens another op-
       portunity to draft a proper complaint.
             The instruction to Mr. Owens was the same: he needed to
       “separate each claim into distinct counts” and “utilize separate par-
       agraphs, with simple, concise, and direct allegations.” See id. at 5.
       The district court also warned Mr. Owens that failure to comply
       with the rules of procedure and its order could result in a sua
       sponte dismissal of his action.
               In December of 2021, Mr. Owens filed a second amended
       complaint. Upon review, the district court concluded that Mr. Ow-
       ens failed to correct any of the previously identified deficiencies and
       noted that the pleading issues had instead, only worsened.
USCA11 Case: 22-10550      Document: 26-1          Date Filed: 06/21/2023   Page: 6 of 8

       6                       Opinion of the Court                   22-10550

             After three failed attempts to draft a complaint in conform-
       ance with Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b), the district court sua sponte dis-
       missed Mr. Owens’ second amended complaint with prejudice.
       Mr. Owens now appeals.
                                             III
              Mr. Owens argues that the district court erred in dismissing
       his second amended complaint because he added two labels, gave
       extensive details, and attached numerous exhibits. But even gen-
       erously construed, the second amended complaint remains a quin-
       tessential shotgun pleading.
              The second amended complaint is difficult to comprehend.
       It consists of 20 pages of long strings of conclusory sentences and
       lengthy, unnumbered paragraphs that fail to show any connection
       to a particular claim or cause of action. The second amended com-
       plaint also includes 65 pages of exhibits with no explanation as to
       their relevance.
               Although Mr. Owens added the labels “Count 1” and
       “Count 2” in an apparent attempt to comply with the district
       court’s directives, they are of little to no help. As the district court
       noted, because Mr. Owens repeats the same two labels throughout
       the second amended complaint, the labels fail to “actually desig-
       nate any distinct claim or claims.” See D.E. 28 at 3 (citing D.E. 24
       at 2, 6, 7, 15, 19).
              Additionally, the information Mr. Owens includes under the
       labels fails to shed any light on the claims he attempts to raise.
USCA11 Case: 22-10550     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 06/21/2023    Page: 7 of 8

       22-10550               Opinion of the Court                        7

       Throughout the second amended complaint, Mr. Owens mainly
       provides a regurgitation of case law and statutes, with only a few
       discernable facts with no clear nexus to an identifiable claim or
       cause of action. The added labels thus fail to serve their intended
       purpose. That is, the defendants are still left with the arduous task
       of deciphering Mr. Owens’ claims and the extent to which they are
       allegedly responsible for them with no real guidance from the
       plaintiff himself.
               We conclude, therefore, that the district court did not abuse
       its discretion in dismissing Mr. Owens’ second amended complaint
       with prejudice. Mr. Owens was given fair notice of the specific de-
       fects in his complaint and a meaningful opportunity to fix them on
       two separate occasions. Other than the addition of the labels
       “Count 1” and “Count 2”—which fail to provide any clarity on the
       claims Mr. Owens raises—the second amended complaint remains
       substantially the same as before. A dismissal with prejudice was
       thus well within the district court’s discretion and therefore, not
       erroneous. See Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1358–
       59 (11th Cir. 2018) (concluding that if the plaintiff is given the
       chance but fails to remedy the defects of his previous complaint,
       “the district court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing the
       case with prejudice on shotgun pleading grounds”).
USCA11 Case: 22-10550    Document: 26-1    Date Filed: 06/21/2023   Page: 8 of 8

       8                    Opinion of the Court              22-10550

                                     IV
             We affirm the district court’s order dismissing Mr. Owens’
       second amended complaint with prejudice.
             AFFIRMED.