Court Opinion

ID: 9369260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 16:01:31.277325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:13.841461
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13042   Document: 21-1    Date Filed: 02/08/2023    Page: 1 of 9

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 21-13042
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       MARCIA A. THOMAS,
                                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,
       CIERA THOMAS, et al.,
                                                             Plaintiffs,
       versus
       LEON COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

                                                          Defendants,

       GAVIN LARREMORE,
       CHRISTOPHER JACOBS,
       WALTER MCNEIL,
USCA11 Case: 21-13042         Document: 21-1        Date Filed: 02/08/2023         Page: 2 of 9

       2                          Opinion of the Court                      21-13042

       LAWRENCE REVELL,
       Chief
       JEROME GAINES, et al.,

                                                           Defendants-Appellees.

                               ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 4:21-cv-00111-MW-MAF
                            ____________________

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Marcia Thomas appeals the district court’s dismissal of her
       pro se 1 civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dis-
       missed Thomas’s fifth amended complaint for failure to comply
       with federal pleading standards and as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §
       1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Thomas also challenges the district court’s denial
       of her motions for appointment of counsel. No reversible error has
       been shown; we affirm.

       1 We read liberally briefs filed by pro se litigants. See Timson v. Sampson, 518
       F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). We also construe liberally pro se pleadings. See
       Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
USCA11 Case: 21-13042      Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 02/08/2023     Page: 3 of 9

       21-13042               Opinion of the Court                         3

              Thomas initiated pro se this civil action in March 2021.
       Thomas -- on behalf of herself and six other plaintiffs -- sought to
       assert claims against several defendants, including three law en-
       forcement agencies, a fire department, a retail store, and seven dif-
       ferent medical providers. Thomas also moved for leave to proceed
       in forma pauperis.
               A magistrate judge reviewed sua sponte Thomas’s com-
       plaint. The magistrate judge observed that Thomas (a non-lawyer)
       was unable to proceed pro se on behalf of the other named plain-
       tiffs. The magistrate judge then identified several other deficiencies
       in Thomas’s complaint and instructed Thomas to amend her com-
       plaint to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
       with the district court’s local rules.
              Thomas filed an amended complaint, an amended motion
       for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and a motion for appoint-
       ment of counsel. Before the magistrate judge ruled on Thomas’s
       first amended complaint, Thomas filed two additional amended
       complaints: pleadings later docketed as a “second amended com-
       plaint” and a “third amended complaint.”
               The magistrate judge granted Thomas leave to proceed in
       forma pauperis and denied Thomas’s motion for appointment of
       counsel. The magistrate judge concluded that Thomas’s amended
       pleadings still failed to comply with the pertinent pleading rules.
       The magistrate judge offered additional guidance to Thomas about
       correcting the identified deficiencies and granted Thomas leave to
       file a fourth amended complaint.
USCA11 Case: 21-13042        Document: 21-1        Date Filed: 02/08/2023        Page: 4 of 9

       4                         Opinion of the Court                     21-13042

              After Thomas filed a fourth amended complaint, the magis-
       trate judge determined that Thomas had still failed to correct the
       deficiencies identified in the magistrate judge’s earlier orders.
       Among other things, the magistrate judge described Thomas’s
       complaint as a “shotgun pleading” that failed to specify the perti-
       nent facts and defendants involved in each claim. The magistrate
       judge again ordered Thomas to amend her complaint and warned
       that failure to comply with the federal pleading rules would result
       in dismissal of the action.
             In July 2021, Thomas filed a fifth amended complaint: the
       complaint underlying this appeal. Thomas named herself and her
       daughter as plaintiffs. 2 Thomas named as defendants two officers
       with the Tallahassee Police Department, two officers with the
       Leon County Sheriff’s Office, and two employees of the Leon
       County Fire Department.
              Briefly stated, Thomas alleged that the Tallahassee Police
       Department had been unlawfully surveilling her as part of a “gang
       stalking conspiracy.” Thomas alleged that police officers parked in
       front of her home, followed her, and called her phone without
       speaking. Thomas said the police attempted to poison her, inserted

       2 The magistrate judge concluded correctly that Thomas was not permitted
       to appear pro se on behalf of her adult daughter in this civil action. See 28
       U.S.C. § 1654 (permitting parties to “conduct their own cases personally or by
       counsel”); Timson, 518 F.3d at 873 (construing section 1654 as “provid[ing] a
       personal right that does not extend to the representation of the interests of
       others”).
USCA11 Case: 21-13042      Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 02/08/2023     Page: 5 of 9

       21-13042                Opinion of the Court                         5

       “nano devices” into her body, and used electric magnetic fields and
       “energy beams” that caused harm to her and to her children. As
       further evidence of the alleged conspiracy, Thomas described
       strange sounds and odors in her home and said she was exposed to
       substances that made her hair fall out. Thomas also alleged that
       police officers broke into her friend’s truck and left behind a “white
       powdery substance” that made Thomas ill.
              Although Thomas allegedly reported this conduct, her com-
       plaints went uninvestigated. Thomas says the police chief in-
       structed officers to ignore Thomas’s 911 calls. Thomas also alleged
       that the fire department conspired with the police to violate her
       rights and to help destroy evidence.
                Incorporating by reference all of her factual allegations,
       Thomas purported to assert these claims against all named defend-
       ants: (1) a claim for violation of Thomas’s constitutional right to
       life, freedom of dignity, and the pursuit of happiness based on de-
       fendants’ “toxic torts,” including “electronic magnetic fields, elec-
       tronic harassment, radiation, gases, chemical, arsenic poisoning or
       pesticide, laser, direct energy beams, [and] cloaking devices”; (2) a
       claim for violation of Thomas’s constitutional right to equal pro-
       tection and due process based on defendants’ “conspiracy-gang
       stalking”; and (3) a claim for intentional infliction of emotional dis-
       tress.
             The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation
       (“R&R”). The magistrate judge recommended that the district
       court dismiss Thomas’s fifth amended complaint for failure to
USCA11 Case: 21-13042      Document: 21-1       Date Filed: 02/08/2023     Page: 6 of 9

       6                       Opinion of the Court                  21-13042

       comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §
       1915(e).
              Thomas filed objections to the R&R. The district court
       overruled Thomas’s objections, adopted the R&R, and dismissed
       Thomas’s complaint. The district court also denied Thomas’s mo-
       tion for appointment of counsel. This appeal followed.
              On appeal, Thomas first challenges the district court’s denial
       of her motions for appointment of counsel. A district court has
       “broad discretion” in deciding whether to appoint counsel in a civil
       case. Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999). In a civil
       case, “the appointment of counsel is . . . a privilege that is justified
       only by exceptional circumstances, such as where the facts and le-
       gal issues are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a
       training practitioner.” Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th
       Cir. 1992).
               The district court abused no discretion in denying Thomas’s
       motions for appointment of counsel. Thomas’s complaint does not
       raise the kinds of novel or complex factual or legal issues that
       would necessitate appointment of counsel. Thomas asserts for the
       first time on appeal that she has a learning disability. Because
       Thomas failed to present to the district court exceptional circum-
       stances requiring appointment of counsel, the district court acted
       within its “broad discretion” in denying Thomas’s motions.
            Thomas next challenges the district court’s dismissal of her
       complaint. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s
USCA11 Case: 21-13042      Document: 21-1      Date Filed: 02/08/2023     Page: 7 of 9

       21-13042                Opinion of the Court                         7

       dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with federal pleading
       standards. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792
       F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). Although we construe liberally
       pro se pleadings, pro se litigants must still conform to procedural
       rules. See Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).
               To comply with federal pleading standards, a complaint
       must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
       that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A
       plaintiff must also present each of her claims in a separate num-
       bered paragraph, with each paragraph “limited as far as practicable
       to a single set of circumstances.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
               A complaint that fails to comply with Rules 8 and 10 may be
       classified as a ‘shotgun pleading.” See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320-
       23; Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1129-30 (11th Cir. 2001). When
       faced with a shotgun pleading, a district court must order a litigant
       to replead and to make a more definite statement of the claim.
       Byrne, 261 F.3d at 1133. When the amended complaint still fails to
       cure the deficiency, the complaint may be subject to dismissal. See
       id.; see also Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1294-94
       (11th Cir. 2018) (recognizing that a district court’s “‘inherent au-
       thority to control its docket and ensure the prompt resolution of
       lawsuits’ . . . includes the ability to dismiss a complaint on shotgun
       pleading grounds”).
             The power to dismiss per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) is significantly
       broader than the usual powers under the Federal Rules. The stat-
       ute vests judges with the duty to look hard at the pertinent
USCA11 Case: 21-13042      Document: 21-1       Date Filed: 02/08/2023     Page: 8 of 9

       8                       Opinion of the Court                  21-13042

       complaint and to assess in a sensible, practical way the realistic like-
       lihood of success.
              Under section 1915, a court “shall dismiss” a case filed in
       forma pauperis if the court determines that the complaint “is friv-
       olous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). “A claim is frivolous if it is
       without arguable merit either in law or fact,” including where it
       “describ[es] fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Bilal v. Driver, 251
       F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). Section 1915 “accords judges . . .
       the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual alle-
       gations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are
       clearly baseless.” Id.
               Despite the magistrate judge’s repeated instructions,
       Thomas’s fifth amended complaint still failed to provide a “short
       and plain statement” of her claims showing that she was entitled to
       relief. Instead, Thomas’s fifth amended complaint consisted of a
       17-page long “rambling list of events” describing unrelated transac-
       tions and occurrences involving several individuals not named as
       defendants in this civil action. Each of Thomas’s asserted claims
       incorporated all of the preceding factual allegations without delin-
       eating what facts pertained to each claim or how each of the named
       defendants was purportedly involved in the alleged harms: an im-
       permissible “shotgun pleading.” In the light of Thomas’s contin-
       ued failure to comply with federal pleading requirements, the dis-
       trict court abused no discretion in concluding that Thomas’s fifth
       amended complaint was subject to dismissal.
USCA11 Case: 21-13042        Document: 21-1        Date Filed: 02/08/2023        Page: 9 of 9

       21-13042                  Opinion of the Court                              9

               Nor can we conclude that the district court abused its discre-
       tion in concluding that Thomas’s complaint was subject to dismis-
       sal as “frivolous” under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). We accept that the
       magistrate judge fairly characterized Thomas’s claims about “nano
       devices” and “harassment from radiation, poisoning, and electrical
       beams” as “delusional and removed from reality.”
              We affirm the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of
       Thomas’s fifth amended complaint without an evidentiary hear-
       ing. 3
              AFFIRMED.

       3 Contrary to Thomas’s assertion on appeal, the district court’s order of dis-
       missal contains no clerical error. The district court characterized accurately
       the operative complaint in this case as Thomas’s “fifth amended complaint.”