Court Opinion

ID: 9387732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 20:00:57.452011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:15.251655
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11692   Document: 70-1    Date Filed: 04/18/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                             [DO NOT PUBLISH]

                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-11692
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       EDDY JEAN PHILIPPEAUX,
                                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       MIAMI APARTMENTS INVESTORS, LLC,
       c/o United Corporate Services, lnc.,
       JOHN DOE,
       Owner of Monare At Met 3,
       ZRS MANAGEMENT,
       BARON RESIDENTIAL, BARON,
       Property Management,
       SHARON FOTHERGILL, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 22-11692     Document: 70-1      Date Filed: 04/18/2023    Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-11692

                                                     Defendants-Appellees,

       RKW RESIDENTIAL,

                                                                Defendant.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-22981-PCH
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Appellant Eddy Philippeaux, proceeding pro se, appeals the
       district court’s order dismissing his pro se second amended com-
       plaint with prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading. Liber-
       ally construed, Philippeaux argues on appeal that he properly al-
       leged that the defendants, Miami Apartments Investors, John Doe,
       ZRS Management, Baron Residential, Sharon Fothergill, and RKW
       Residential, harmed him when they did not accommodate his dis-
       ability and that he stated a plausible claim for relief in his second
       amended complaint. After reviewing the record and reading the
       parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s order of dismissal.
USCA11 Case: 22-11692      Document: 70-1          Date Filed: 04/18/2023   Page: 3 of 5

       22-11692                Opinion of the Court                           3

                                              I.
               We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s order dis-
       missing a complaint for failure to comply with the rules setting
       forth requirements for form of pleadings. Weiland v. Palm Beach
       Cty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). Under Fed-
       eral Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading that states a claim
       for relief 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). This short and plain statement must “give the defendant
       fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
       rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct.
       1955, 1964 (2007) (quotation marks omitted, alteration in original).
       The complaint must contain more than labels and bare conclu-
       sions. Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1965. While pro se pleadings are liberally
       construed and held to less stringent standards than those drafted by
       attorneys, they still must provide some factual basis for a claim.
       Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 787 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2015).
       Once the district court gives a plaintiff fair notice of the specific de-
       fects in his complaint and a meaningful chance to fix them, the dis-
       trict court can properly dismiss with prejudice if the plaintiff files
       an amended complaint afflicted with the same defects. Jackson v.
       Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1358-59 (11th Cir. 2018).
                                             II.
              So-called “shotgun” pleadings do not provide a short and
       plain statement of a claim under Rule 8. Magluta v. Samples, 256
       F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). We have “little tolerance for
USCA11 Case: 22-11692      Document: 70-1      Date Filed: 04/18/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                 22-11692

       shotgun pleadings,” given that “[t]hey waste scarce judicial re-
       sources, inexorably broaden[] the scope of discovery, wreak havoc
       on appellate court dockets, and undermine[] the public’s respect
       for the courts.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295
       (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted, second and third altera-
       tions in original). “Shotgun” pleadings include 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 respon-
       sible for which acts or omissions. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321-23. All
       these types of “shotgun” pleadings are characterized by their failure
       “to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them
       and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323.
               Like other litigants, a pro se appellant abandons an issue by
       failing to address it in his opening brief. Sapuppo v. Allstate Florid-
       ian Ins., 739 F.3d 678, 681-83 (11th Cir. 2014). An appellant fails to
       brief a claim when he does not “plainly and prominently” raise it,
       such as by devoting a discrete section of his argument to the
       claim. Id. at 681.
                                            III.
              As an initial matter, to the extent that Philippeaux raises new
       allegations of retaliation by the defendants that have taken place
USCA11 Case: 22-11692        Document: 70-1       Date Filed: 04/18/2023        Page: 5 of 5

       22-11692                  Opinion of the Court                             5

       since he filed this appeal, those allegations are outside the scope of
       the appeal before us. Thus, we decline to consider them.
              As to the remaining allegations, the record demonstrates
       that Philippeaux does not specifically address on appeal the district
       court’s finding that his second amended complaint was a shotgun
       pleading, abandoning any such challenge. Even if we considered
       the claim, however, the record demonstrates that the district court
       did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Philippeaux’s second
       amended complaint with prejudice as a shotgun pleading. The sec-
       ond amended complaint did not meet the requirements of Federal
       Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) because Philippeaux did not give the
       defendants notice of his claims and did not state the grounds upon
       which each claim rests. While Philippeaux made some specific al-
       legations against specific defendants regarding some claims within
       some counts, he asserted most of his claims against all the defend-
       ants generally. He did not specify which claims he was asserting
       against which defendant, and he did not identify which defendant
       was responsible for which alleged claim. The district court in-
       structed him to provide more specificity, but he failed to do so. Ac-
       cordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the district
       court’s order dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
              AFFIRMED. 1

               1 Philippeaux’s motion for judicial notice and to supplement the rec-
       ord on appeal is DENIED because the documents at issue are not relevant to
       this appeal.