Court Opinion

ID: 9896598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-13 20:01:12.591389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:08.604705
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10452   Document: 50-1    Date Filed: 11/13/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-10452
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       DAVID TIMOTHY JOHNSON, SR.,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       URVASHI FOSTER,
       an individual,
       BILLIE JOE FOSTER,
       an individual,
       DEPUTY BROOKS,
       Badge # 203, Georgetown-Quitman County
       Sheriﬀ Department, an individual,
       GOD AND GOD ALONE LLC,
       a limited liability corporation,
       MAGISTRATE COURT OF GEORGETOWN-QUITMAN
USCA11 Case: 23-10452      Document: 50-1     Date Filed: 11/13/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10452

       COUNTY, et al.,

                                                     Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 4:21-cv-00219-CDL
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               David Johnson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
       dismissal of his complaint and denial of his two Rule 60 motions to
       vacate. The district court gave him a chance to ﬁle an amended
       complaint and instructions for how to cure his pleading deﬁcien-
       cies, but his amended complaint still fell short of the pleading re-
       quirements in federal court. For the reasons explained below, the
       district court was well within its discretion to dismiss his complaint
       with prejudice and Johnson has abandoned any challenge to the de-
       nial of his motions to vacate. We aﬃrm.
                                      I.

             Johnson sued multiple private and government actors over
       what appears to be a landlord-tenant lawsuit in state court. He al-
       leges he was mistreated by a state magistrate judge and
USCA11 Case: 23-10452     Document: 50-1      Date Filed: 11/13/2023    Page: 3 of 6

       23-10452               Opinion of the Court                        3

       discriminated against based on his race, sex, religion, age, and dis-
       ability. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and the dis-
       trict court held that Johnson’s complaint was a shotgun pleading
       that failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)
       and 10(b). The district court instructed Johnson how to cure his
       pleading deﬁciencies and gave him twenty-eight days to ﬁle an
       amended complaint.
              Johnson failed to cure those deﬁciencies, and the district
       court dismissed Johnson’s amended complaint because it again de-
       termined it was a shotgun pleading that violated Rules 8(a)(2) and
       10(b). It held that (1) the allegations were conclusory, vague, and
       contained immaterial facts that were not connected to a speciﬁc
       cause of action, (2) the amended complaint failed to separate each
       cause of action into a diﬀerent count and treated the defendants as
       a collective unit for the majority of the claims, and (3) Johnson
       made no eﬀort to clearly assert each claim, supported by allega-
       tions, against each defendant.
              Johnson then ﬁled two motions to vacate that judgment un-
       der Rule 60 due to his neglect, the district court’s lack of instruc-
       tions to cure his pleading deﬁciencies, his health problems, and the
       defendants’ fraud, misrepresentation, and misconduct. The district
       court denied both motions because there was no excusable neglect,
       it previously provided suﬃcient instructions to cure his pleading
       deﬁciencies, it accommodated his health problems by allowing him
       additional time for some ﬁlings, and he failed to identify any fraud,
       misconduct, or misrepresentation. He timely appealed.
USCA11 Case: 23-10452        Document: 50-1        Date Filed: 11/13/2023        Page: 4 of 6

       4                         Opinion of the Court                     23-10452

                                          II.

              We review dismissals of a complaint because it is a shotgun
       pleading for abuse of discretion. Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321,
       1324 (11th Cir. 2021). We also review a district court’s denial of a
       Rule 60 motion for abuse of discretion. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Nw.
       Nat’l Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 1332, 1338 (11th Cir. 1999). While we read
       briefs ﬁled by pro se litigants liberally, a pro se litigant is still “subject
       to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules
       of Civil Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.
       1989).
                                          III.

               The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dis-
       missed Johnson’s amended complaint as a shotgun pleading. A
       shotgun pleading fails “to give the defendants adequate notice of
       the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim
       rests.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriﬀ’s Oﬀ., 792 F.3d 1313, 1323
       (11th Cir. 2015). Shotgun pleadings “waste scarce judicial resources,
       inexorably broaden the scope of discovery, wreak havoc on appel-
       late court dockets, and undermine the public’s respect for the
       courts.” Vibe Micro Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir.
       2018).
             Characteristics of shotgun pleadings include (1) containing
       “multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all pre-
       ceding counts,” (2) being “replete with conclusory, vague, and im-
       material facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of
USCA11 Case: 23-10452      Document: 50-1      Date Filed: 11/13/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       23-10452               Opinion of the Court                          5

       action,” (3) failing to separate “into a diﬀerent count each cause of
       action or claim for relief,” and (4) asserting “multiple claims against
       multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants
       are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the defend-
       ants the claim is brought against.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321–23.
       Further, Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include a short and
       plain statement entitling the plaintiﬀ to relief, and Rule 10(b) re-
       quires a complaint to state claims in separate, numbered para-
       graphs. We require district courts to allow a litigant one chance to
       remedy a shotgun pleading. Vibe, 878 F.3d at 1295. If a plaintiﬀ fails
       to correct their deﬁcient pleading after that notice, the district
       court is well within its discretion to dismiss the case. Id.
               Johnson has failed to establish the district court abused its
       discretion when it held that his amended complaint was a shotgun
       pleading. Johnson stated no facts to support his claims, failed to
       separate his claims into distinct counts, and treated all of the de-
       fendants as a collective unit for the majority of the claims. Plus, the
       district court had already given Johnson instructions on how to
       cure his pleading deﬁciencies and twenty-eight days to do so. A dis-
       trict court has the discretion to dismiss a complaint as a shotgun
       pleading, especially after notifying the plaintiﬀ of the deﬁciencies
       and giving him an opportunity to cure them. Id. The district court
       did not abuse that discretion here.
                                      IV.

             We need not address the district court’s order denying John-
       son’s motions to vacate because Johnson has abandoned any
USCA11 Case: 23-10452      Document: 50-1      Date Filed: 11/13/2023     Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10452

       challenge to that order on appeal. To avoid abandonment, a party
       must plainly identify the issues or claims that they seek to raise on
       appeal. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680–81
       (11th Cir. 2014). A party abandons a claim on appeal when he fails
       to “plainly and prominently raise it, for instance by devoting a dis-
       crete section of his argument to those claims.” Id. at 681. We con-
       strue a pro se litigant’s briefs liberally, but an issue not briefed on
       appeal by a pro se litigant is deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson,
       518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
             Johnson’s brief does not mention Rule 60 and makes no ar-
       gument as to why the district court abused its discretion in denying
       his two motions to vacate. Even construing his brief liberally, we
       cannot ﬁnd that he briefed the issue on appeal. Thus, we need not
       address the merits of the district court’s denial of his motions to
       vacate.
                                      V.

              For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM.