Court Opinion

ID: 9950146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 15:01:27.106056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:02.358584
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10916    Document: 73-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2024   Page: 1 of 9

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]

                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10916
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       TAMIKO N. PEELE,
       Individually on Behalf of Themselves,
       ROBERT L. WALKER,
       Individually on Behalf of Themselves,
                                                   Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
       versus
       THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA,
       BROWARD COUNTY, FL,
       it's Court Registry Depository Funds of Federal
       Reserve Notes $180,030.00 U.S. Currency, it's
       Records Division Instrument numbers
       117519100, 112300593, 115467945,
USCA11 Case: 23-10916    Document: 73-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2024   Page: 2 of 9

       2                    Opinion of the Court                23-10916

       113178049,
       DOES 1-3,
       inclusive in their individual and oﬃcial capacity,
       THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
       through its Social Security Administration
       Program, it's Cooperative Disability Investigations
       Program (CDI) and its Social Insurance
       Administrators Velma T. Blaine, James Peavy,
       Antonio Miguel Quinones, Brian Garber,
       DOES 1-11,
       inclusive and in their oﬃcial and individual
       capacity,
       THE FLORIDA BAR CLIENTS' SECURITY FUND, et al.,

                                                   Defendants-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-14037-AMC
                          ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Appellants Tamiko Peele and Robert Walker, proceeding
       pro se, appeal the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of their
USCA11 Case: 23-10916      Document: 73-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2024     Page: 3 of 9

       23-10916               Opinion of the Court                         3

       complaint without prejudice as an impermissible “shotgun” plead-
       ing. They also challenge, generally, the removal of their case to fed-
       eral court. Four of the appellees have moved for summary affir-
       mance. For the following reasons, we grant the appellees’ motions
       and affirm.
                                         I.
              As a brief factual background, the appellants filed a state-
       court complaint against numerous defendants based on the after-
       math of an injury Walker allegedly suffered while employed by one
       of the defendants, the United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”). The ap-
       pellants, who filed for bankruptcy protection after the injury,
       blamed UPS and the other defendants—including, for example, the
       U.S. Social Security Administration (“SSA”), Liberty Mutual Insur-
       ance Company, the Florida Bar, Truist Bank, and several individu-
       als associated with these entities—for their alleged financial ruin.
               The SSA removed the case to federal court. The appellants
       filed a notice objecting to the removal, but the filing provided no
       reasons why the case should be remanded.
               Then, the district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint
       without prejudice, concluding that the complaint was an imper-
       missible shotgun pleading that violated Federal Rules of Civil Pro-
       cedure 8(a)(2) and 10(b). The court gave the appellants the oppor-
       tunity to file an amended complaint and explained what defects in
       the complaint they would need to cure. The district court also no-
       tified the appellants of a procedure and deadline for seeking re-
       mand to the state court. In two separate orders issued between the
USCA11 Case: 23-10916        Document: 73-1         Date Filed: 03/13/2024        Page: 4 of 9

       4                         Opinion of the Court                      23-10916

       dismissal order and the deadline to file an amended complaint, the
       district court reminded the appellants of the due date for the
       amended complaint. Rather than filing an amended complaint or
       seeking a remand, however, the appellants appealed, identifying as
       the order for review the district court’s order dismissing the com-
       plaint as a shotgun pleading. The district court then entered an or-
       der dismissing the action without prejudice based on the appel-
       lants’ failure to file an amended complaint; the appellants thereaf-
       ter amended their notice of appeal to include this order. Several of
       the defendants, now appellees, have filed motions for summary af-
       firmance.
                                             II.
              Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
       the essence, such as in “situations where important public policy
       issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights de-
       nied,” 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, 1161–62 (5th Cir. 1969). 1
             We review the district court’s dismissal of a complaint on
       shotgun pleading grounds for an abuse of discretion. Weiland v.
       Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015).

       1 Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of busi-

       ness on September 30, 1981, are binding on this Court. See Bonner v. City of
       Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 23-10916      Document: 73-1       Date Filed: 03/13/2024      Page: 5 of 9

       23-10916                Opinion of the Court                           5

       We liberally construe pro se pleadings. Pinson v. JPMorgan Chase
       Bank, N.A., 942 F.3d 1200, 1206 (11th Cir. 2019). An appellant aban-
       dons an issue on appeal when she makes only passing references to
       it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting argu-
       ments and authority. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridan Ins. Co., 739 F.3d
       678, 680–81 (11th Cir. 2014). “[S]imply stating that an issue exists,”
       without providing reasoning and citation to authority upon which
       a party is relying, “constitutes abandonment of that issue.” Id. at
       681 (internal quotation marks omitted).
               The “United States or any agency thereof” may remove a
       civil action against it that a party has commenced in state court. 28
       U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). “[U]nder section 1442(a)(1), the district court
       may take the entire case, even if it would not have jurisdiction over
       any of the claims against a codefendant.” Williams v. City of Atlanta,
       794 F.2d 624, 628 (11th Cir. 1986). After a case is removed, a motion
       to remand the case based on “any defect other than lack of subject
       matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of
       the notice of removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “If at any time before
       final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
       jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” Id.
              A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
       the claim” showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ.
       P. 8(a)(2). Claims should be stated “in numbered paragraphs, each
       limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”
       Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “Shotgun” pleadings include complaints that:
       (1) contain multiple counts where each count adopts the
USCA11 Case: 23-10916       Document: 73-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024      Page: 6 of 9

       6                       Opinion of the Court                   23-10916

       allegations of all preceding counts; (2) are “replete with conclusory,
       vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any partic-
       ular 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 de-
       fendants are responsible for which acts or omissions.” Weiland, 792
       F.3d at 1321–23. All these types of shotgun pleadings are character-
       ized 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.
              A district court may dismiss a complaint on shotgun plead-
       ing grounds under its “inherent authority to control its docket and
       ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits.” Vibe Micro Inc. v. Sha-
       banets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
       marks omitted). However, in the case of a non-merits dismissal on
       shotgun pleading grounds, the district court is required to allow the
       plaintiff one chance to remedy the deficient pleading. Id. If the
       court permits the plaintiff to amend and explains in its repleading
       order how the offending complaint violates the shotgun pleading
       rule, but the plaintiff still fails to remedy the pleading’s defects, the
       court may in its discretion dismiss the case with prejudice. Id. at
       1295–96. Regardless of what kind of defect the complaint suffers
       from, shotgun or otherwise, a plaintiff proceeding pro se must re-
       ceive at least one opportunity to amend the complaint if he might
       be able to state a claim by doing so. Woldeab v. Dekalb Cnty. Bd. of
       Educ., 885 F.3d 1289, 1291–92 (11th Cir. 2018).
USCA11 Case: 23-10916      Document: 73-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024     Page: 7 of 9

       23-10916               Opinion of the Court                          7

                                        III.
               We grant the appellees’ motions for summary aﬃrmance.
       First, the case was properly removed to federal court. The SSA, as
       a federal agency named as a defendant, was within its statutory
       right to remove the case to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Alt-
       hough the appellants did not directly challenge on appeal the dis-
       trict court’s jurisdiction over the other defendants, we note that the
       district court also had ancillary jurisdiction over the other defend-
       ants by virtue of the SSA’s proper removal of the case. Williams,
       794 F.2d at 628. The appellants ﬁled a joint notice objecting to the
       removal, but they did not identify any defect in the removal as re-
       quired by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), nor did one exist. Finally, the appel-
       lants have not raised any arguments as to the district court’s subject
       matter jurisdiction that would warrant a remand back to state
       court. Id. Thus, any challenge to the removal of the case from state
       to federal court is meritless.
               Second, the appellants have abandoned any argument as to
       the dismissal of their complaint as an impermissible shotgun plead-
       ing. They make passing references to the concept of a “Shot Gun
       Pleading,” and they oﬀer the conclusory statement that the district
       court abused its discretion and violated their right to due process
       in dismissing their complaint. But they otherwise make no substan-
       tive argument to explain how their complaint was not in fact a shot-
       gun pleading. These sort of passing references, we have held, are
       insuﬃcient to preserve an issue for appeal. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681.
USCA11 Case: 23-10916     Document: 73-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2024    Page: 8 of 9

       8                      Opinion of the Court                23-10916

               Even assuming for the sake of argument that the appellants
       have not abandoned the issue on appeal, on the merits, the district
       court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with-
       out prejudice as a shotgun pleading. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320. The
       complaint ﬁt two of the types of shotgun pleadings we previously
       have identiﬁed. It contained multiple counts that adopted the alle-
       gations of all preceding counts, and it asserted multiple claims
       against multiple defendants without specifying which of the de-
       fendants were responsible for which acts. Id. at 1321–23. [DE 1-
       2:20–33.] Therefore, the district court was permitted to dismiss the
       complaint under its “inherent authority to control its docket and
       ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits.” Vibe Micro Inc., 878 F.3d
       at 1295 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court also
       correctly allowed the appellants an opportunity to replead, gave
       speciﬁc and detailed instructions on how to cure the deﬁciencies in
       the complaint, and gave multiple warnings as to when the
       amended complaint was due. Id. at 1295–96; Woldeab, 885 F.3d
       at 1291–92. The appellants failed to take the opportunity to replead
       by the given deadline. Instead, they chose to appeal the order dis-
       missing their initial complaint without prejudice, later amending
       their notice of appeal to include the district court’s order dismiss-
       ing the case for failure to meet the repleading deadline. In sum, the
       district court satisﬁed its obligations to the appellants and was
       within its discretion to dismiss the complaint as an impermissible
       shotgun pleading. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320.
              Because the appellees’ positions are clearly right as a matter
       of law, we grant their motions for summary aﬃrmance.
USCA11 Case: 23-10916   Document: 73-1   Date Filed: 03/13/2024   Page: 9 of 9

       23-10916           Opinion of the Court                     9

             AFFIRMED.