Court Opinion

ID: 9966294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 17:01:39.439758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:40.782716
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12949    Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 05/06/2024   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-12949
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       HAROLD JEAN-BAPTISTE,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-23181-RNS
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12949     Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 05/06/2024    Page: 2 of 7

       2                     Opinion of the Court                 23-12949

       Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Harold Jean-Baptiste, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
       court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint without
       prejudice as a shotgun pleading and directing him to file an
       amended complaint. After review, we affirm.
                                I.     Background
              Jean-Baptiste filed a pro se complaint against Publix
       Supermarkets, Inc., alleging that he was bringing the complaint
       under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986; 21 U.S.C. §§ 342(a), 343,
       350g, 246, and “lack care of duty, Ninth Amendment, negligence,
       [and] cruel and human rights violations.” In his complaint, he
       alleged that he went to the Miami University Hospital on June 30,
       2023, due to an unexplained spike in his blood pressure after
       drinking from a Smartwater bottle that he purchased from a Publix
       Supermarket in Miami, Florida. He was admitted to the hospital,
       and claimed that a special agent with the FBI at the hospital told
       hospital staff “not [to] inform[] [Jean-Baptiste] of the toxic
       substance in his system.” He maintained that the FBI agent’s
       presence and actions at the hospital “implie[d] complicity” and
       demonstrated that the FBI was targeting him with Publix’s help
       and tampered with the last two water bottles on the shelf, which
       Jean-Baptiste purchased. He asserted that the FBI was targeting
       him because of past lawsuits he had filed against the FBI.
USCA11 Case: 23-12949         Document: 17-1          Date Filed: 05/06/2024          Page: 3 of 7

       23-12949                   Opinion of the Court                                  3

               In a section labeled “Violations of Laws,” Jean-Baptiste
       alleged in a conclusory manner that Publix violated his civil rights,
       human rights, was negligent, willfully ran a store with
       contaminated food, willfully mislabeled food, failed to evaluate the
       hazards of the food in its store, failed to prevent illegal activity, and
       treated him unfairly based on his race, color, and national origin,
       constituting harassment and retaliation. He requested declaratory
       relief and compensatory and punitive damages.
              The district court sua sponte struck the complaint as an
       impermissible shotgun pleading and directed Jean-Baptiste to file
       an amended complaint. The district court explained the
       deficiencies in the complaint and what Jean-Baptiste needed to do
       to fix them. 1 However, rather than file an amended complaint,
       Jean-Baptiste filed a notice of appeal.
                                       II.     Discussion
             Although Jean-Baptiste does not expressly address the
       dismissal of the complaint on shotgun pleading grounds, he argues
       generally that the district court misapplied the law and erred in
       dismissing his complaint, and that the dismissal denied him his

       1 Minutes before the district court issued the dismissal order, Jean-Baptiste filed

       an amended complaint that was identical to the original. The district court
       issued a paperless order striking this complaint, noting that it was filed minutes
       before the court issued the dismissal order on shotgun pleading grounds, and
       again directed Jean-Baptiste to correct the identified deficiencies and file an
       amended complaint.
USCA11 Case: 23-12949      Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 05/06/2024     Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12949

       opportunity to present his case to the courts. We disagree for the
       reasons set forth below.
               “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
       pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally
       construed.” Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003)
       (quotations omitted). “A district court has the inherent authority
       to control its docket and ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits,
       which includes the ability to dismiss a complaint on shotgun
       pleading grounds.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295
       (11th Cir. 2018) (quotations omitted). We review the district
       court’s dismissal for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1294.
              “A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates either
       Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both.”
       Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021). Rule 8
       requires that the complaint set forth “a short and plain statement
       of the claim” demonstrating an entitlement to relief, and Rule 10
       requires that a plaintiff “state [his] claims . . . in numbered
       paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of
       circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and 10(b). Rule 10 further
       provides that each claim be stated in separate counts “[i]f doing so
       would promote clarity.” Id. R. 10(b). As we have previously
       explained, there are approximately four types of shotgun pleadings.
       Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir.
       2015).
             The most common type—by a long shot—is a
             complaint containing multiple counts where each
USCA11 Case: 23-12949      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 05/06/2024     Page: 5 of 7

       23-12949               Opinion of the Court                          5

              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. The next most common type, at
              least as far as our published opinions on the subject
              reﬂect, is a complaint that does not commit the
              mortal sin of re-alleging all preceding counts but is
              guilty of the venial sin of being replete with
              conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously
              connected to any particular cause of action. The
              third type of shotgun pleading is one that commits
              the sin of not separating into a diﬀerent count each
              cause of action or claim for relief. Fourth, and ﬁnally,
              there is the relatively rare sin of asserting 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.

       Id. at 1321–23 (footnotes omitted).
              We have repeatedly condemned the use of shotgun
       pleadings. See Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324; Magluta v. Samples, 256
       F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). And we have explained that where
       a party files a shotgun pleading, “the district court should strike the
       pleading and instruct [the party] to replead the case . . . even when
       the other party does not move to strike the pleading.” Jackson v.
       Bank of Am., 898 F.3d 1348, 1357–58 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotations
       omitted); see also Woldeab v. DeKalb Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 1289,
       1291–92 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining that generally, where a more
USCA11 Case: 23-12949      Document: 17-1       Date Filed: 05/06/2024     Page: 6 of 7

       6                       Opinion of the Court                  23-12949

       carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, the district court
       abuses its discretion if it does not provide a pro se plaintiff at least
       one opportunity to amend before the court dismisses with
       prejudice). In dismissing the improper shotgun pleading, the
       district court should explain how the pleading violated the shotgun
       rule so that the plaintiff can remedy those issues in his next
       pleading. Vibe Micro, 878 F.3d at 1296.
               Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
       dismissing the complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading
       and directing Jean-Baptiste to file an amended complaint. The
       complaint was a shotgun pleading because it contained conclusory,
       vague, and immaterial facts that were not obviously connected to
       a particular count. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321–23 (explaining that
       one type of shotgun pleading is one that is “replete with
       conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected
       to any particular cause of action”). The complaint also improperly
       listed, within a single paragraph, numerous causes of action in
       violation of Rules 8 and 10. Therefore, the district court properly
       dismissed the complaint without prejudice, identified the
       deficiencies and explained how to correct them, and provided Jean-
       Baptiste an opportunity to amend as required. See Jackson, 898 F.3d
       at 1357–58; Vibe Micro, 878 F.3d at 1296.
              Jean-Baptiste chose to appeal instead of amend the
       complaint, thereby waiving his right to amend. See Schurrman v.
       Motor Vessel Betty K V, 798 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir. 1986) (“Once the
       plaintiff chooses to appeal before the expiration of time allowed for
USCA11 Case: 23-12949      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 05/06/2024     Page: 7 of 7

       23-12949               Opinion of the Court                          7

       amendment, however, the plaintiff waives the right to later amend
       the complaint, even if the time to amend has not yet expired.”); see
       also Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1244
       n.1 (11th Cir. 2005) (same). Accordingly, the district court did not
       abuse its discretion, and we affirm.
              AFFIRMED.