Court Opinion

ID: 9398269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 18:01:34.802993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.861429
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13943   Document: 19-1    Date Filed: 05/30/2023   Page: 1 of 9

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-13943
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       MONISHA F. MOORE,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       JASPER CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
       WALKER WILSON,
       in his individual capacity,
       TERESA SHERER,
       in her individual capacity,
       MARY BETH BARBER,
       in her individual capacity,
       SCOTT THORNLEY,
       in his individual capacity, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 22-13943     Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 05/30/2023    Page: 2 of 9

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-13943

                                                    Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Alabama
                      D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cv-01269-ACA
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Monisha Moore, represented by counsel during all
       proceedings, appeals the district court’s order sua sponte
       dismissing with prejudice her amended complaint as a shotgun
       pleading. After review, we affirm.
                            I.     BACKGROUND
               On September 30, 2022, Moore filed an initial 28-page
       complaint with 67 allegations against 10 defendants. Moore
       alleged that the defendants discriminated against her because of her
       race and age in violation of her constitutional and federal statutory
       rights.
              On October 6, 2022, the district court sua sponte struck
       Moore’s complaint as a shotgun pleading. The district court found
       that her complaint was a shotgun pleading because (1) each count
       incorporated by reference all the previous allegations, and
USCA11 Case: 22-13943       Document: 19-1       Date Filed: 05/30/2023      Page: 3 of 9

       22-13943                Opinion of the Court                            3

       (2) certain allegations and counts failed to give the court or the
       defendants adequate notice of the claims.
               The district court allowed Moore to file an amended
       complaint. The district court explained that (1) her amended
       complaint must contain a separate count for each claim that
       contained a factual basis for that claim only, and (2) each count’s
       heading had to identify the specific defendant or defendants against
       whom the claim was asserted, and the statute or law under which
       the claim was brought. Lastly, the district court warned Moore
       that if her amended complaint was also a shotgun pleading, the
       district court would dismiss it “with prejudice without further
       notice.”
             On October 21, 2022, Moore filed a 25-page amended
       complaint with 111 allegations and five substantive counts against
       the same 10 defendants. 1
               On October 31, 2022, the district court dismissed Moore’s
       amended complaint with prejudice on shotgun pleading grounds.
       First, the district court found that all her counts continued to
       improperly incorporate by reference every previous allegation
       contained in the amended complaint.
               Second, the district court concluded that the headings and
       allegations in counts 2, 3, and 4 were “inconsistent and ma[d]e it
       difficult—if not impossible—for the defendants to determine

       1The amended complaint lists six counts, but count 1 is titled “FACTS” and
       does not assert a claim for relief.
USCA11 Case: 22-13943        Document: 19-1        Date Filed: 05/30/2023       Page: 4 of 9

       4                        Opinion of the Court                     22-13943

       which and how many of them [were] subject to the claims asserted
       in those counts.”
              Third, the district court noted that count 5 attempted to
       assert claims against the individual school board defendants in both
       their individual and official capacities, but the amended
       complaint’s caption and party allegations stated that they were
       named only in their individual capacities. So the district court
       concluded that the defendants did not have fair notice of the nature
       of the claims asserted against them.
             Fourth, the district court found that count 6’s reference to
       “Defendants” generally did not specify which acts or omissions
       were attributable to which defendant.
             The district court noted that it already gave Moore—who
       was represented by counsel—notice of the defects in the original
       complaint and specific instructions on how to cure those defects.
       The district court found “Moore made no meaningful effort to
       correct the deficiencies,” so dismissal with prejudice was
       appropriate.
              Moore appealed. 2

       2The defendants had not been served at the time of the dismissal, so they did
       not participate in this appeal.
USCA11 Case: 22-13943         Document: 19-1    Date Filed: 05/30/2023      Page: 5 of 9

       22-13943                 Opinion of the Court                          5

                        II.      STANDARD OF REVIEW
              We review a dismissal on shotgun pleading grounds for an
       abuse of discretion. Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th
       Cir. 2021).
                                 III.   DISCUSSION
              On appeal, Moore argues that the district court abused its
       discretion in dismissing her amended complaint with prejudice
       because (1) her amended complaint was not a shotgun pleading
       and (2) she should be allowed to amend her amended complaint
       because there is no prejudice to the defendants since they have not
       been served yet. Below, we review our relevant law on shotgun
       pleadings and then explain why the district court did not abuse its
       discretion.
       A.     General Rules on Shotgun Pleadings
              A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates either
       Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or 10(b), or both. Weiland
       v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015).
              Rule 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the
       claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
       8(a)(2). Rule 10(b) requires a party to “state its claims or defenses
       in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a
       single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Rule 10(b) also
       mandates that “each claim founded on a separate transaction or
       occurrence . . . be stated in a separate count” if doing so would
       promote clarity. Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-13943      Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 6 of 9

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13943

               “The self-evident purpose of these rules is to require the
       pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly, so that his
       adversary can discern what he is claiming and frame a responsive
       pleading.” Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324 (cleaned up). In other
       words, “shotgun pleadings are flatly forbidden by the spirit, if not
       the letter, of these rules because they are calculated to confuse the
       enemy and the court.” Id. (cleaned up). Accordingly, we have
       “little tolerance” for shotgun pleadings. Id. (quotation marks
       omitted).
              “[W]e have identified four rough types or categories of
       shotgun pleadings”: (1) “a complaint containing multiple counts
       where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts,
       causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the
       last count to be a combination of the entire complaint”; (2) a
       complaint that is “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial
       facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action”;
       (3) a complaint that does not separate “each cause of action or
       claim for relief” into a different count; and (4) a complaint that
       “assert[s] 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.
              A district court must give a plaintiff one opportunity to
       remedy her shotgun pleading before dismissing her action. Vibe
       Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2018). But if
       she files an amended complaint without substantially fixing the
USCA11 Case: 22-13943      Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 7 of 9

       22-13943               Opinion of the Court                          7

       deficiencies, dismissal with prejudice is warranted. See Jackson v.
       Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1358–59 (11th Cir. 2018)
       (explaining that “[t]he [d]istrict [c]ourt should have dismissed the
       amended complaint with prejudice” where “the [plaintiffs] filed an
       amended complaint afflicted with the same defects, attempting
       halfheartedly to cure only one of the pleading’s many ailments by
       naming which counts pertained to each [d]efendant”).
       B.     No Abuse of Discretion
               The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
       Moore’s amended complaint with prejudice. When the district
       court struck Moore’s initial complaint on shotgun pleading
       grounds, it (1) allowed Moore to ﬁle an amended complaint,
       (2) explicitly told her how to cure the pleading deﬁciencies, and
       (3) warned her that failure to ﬁx the issues would result in dismissal
       of the amended complaint “with prejudice without further
       notice.” Despite these instructions and warning, Moore ﬁled an
       amended complaint without substantially remedying the pleading
       issues.
              Moore’s amended complaint was a quintessential shotgun
       pleading for two reasons. First, each count incorporated by
       reference the allegations of its predecessor counts, “leading to a
       situation where most of the counts (i.e., all but the ﬁrst) contain[ed]
       irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions.” Strategic
       Income Fund, LLC v. Spear, Leeds & Kello Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295
       (11th Cir. 2002).
USCA11 Case: 22-13943      Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 8 of 9

       8                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13943

              Second, the headings and allegations indiscriminately
       referred to singular and plural defendants, making it diﬃcult to
       ascertain which defendant or defendants were responsible for each
       act or omission. In count 3, for example, the heading lists only
       defendant Jasper City Board of Education, but the allegations
       beneath that heading refer to “Defendant City of Jasper Board of
       Education[] and the individual defendants,” “Defendant Rigsby,”
       and “Defendants.”
              In short, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
       dismissing her amended complaint with prejudice because (1) it
       provided Moore with fair notice of the defects in her original
       complaint and a meaningful opportunity to ﬁx them, yet
       (2) Moore, who was represented by counsel, failed to remedy the
       defects, and her amended complaint remained a shotgun pleading.
       See Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1326 (“Barmapov was represented by
       counsel, the district court dismissed his ﬁrst amended complaint
       after explaining why it was a shotgun pleading, and the court gave
       him a chance to try again. Barmapov squandered that opportunity
       by ﬁling another shotgun pleading. Under this circumstance, we
       have no doubt that the district court did not abuse its discretion” in
       dismissing with prejudice.); Jackson, 898 F.3d at 1358 (“[T]he key is
       whether the plaintiﬀ had fair notice of the defects and a meaningful
       chance to ﬁx them. If that chance is aﬀorded and the plaintiﬀ fails
       to remedy the defects, the district court does not abuse its
       discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice on shotgun
       pleading grounds.”).
USCA11 Case: 22-13943      Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 05/30/2023     Page: 9 of 9

       22-13943               Opinion of the Court                         9

               Further, the district court was not required to give Moore
       any additional opportunities to remedy her pleading violations. See
       Automotive Alignment & Body Serv., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.,
       953 F.3d 707, 732 (11th Cir. 2020) (“[A] district court is required to
       give a counseled plaintiﬀ only one chance to replead before
       dismissing a complaint with prejudice on shotgun-pleading
       grounds[.]”); Vibe Micro, 878 F.3d at 1296 (explaining that “the
       district court was not required to sua sponte give [the plaintiﬀ] any
       additional chances to remedy” the shotgun pleading issues where
       it had already given him a chance to amend his complaint to cure
       the deﬁciencies and “provided him with a veritable instruction
       manual on how to do so”).
       C.    Less Severe Sanctions Argument
              Moore also argues that the district court abused its
       discretion by failing to consider less severe sanctions. Moore cites
       Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes a court to
       dismiss a party’s complaint for failure to prosecute or comply with
       a court order, and cases explaining that a dismissal under Rule 41(b)
       is an extreme sanction that may be imposed only when, inter alia,
       the district court speciﬁcally ﬁnds that lesser sanctions would not
       suﬃce. That law is inapplicable here because the district court
       dismissed Moore’s amended complaint on shotgun pleading
       grounds, not because she failed to prosecute her case or failed to
       comply with a district court order.
             AFFIRMED.