Court Opinion

ID: 9957135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 19:01:04.416844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:07.217348
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12449   Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 04/03/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 23-12449
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       VELINA M. JOHNSON,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       INLAND RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC,
       (IRRES LLC),
       THE INLAND REAL ESTATE GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC.,
       BONNIE BURRIS,
       in Her Oﬃcial Capacity as Violation Regional Property Manager
       with Inland Residential Real Estate Services LLC,
       ASHLEY STODDART,
       in Her Oﬃcial Capacity As Property Manager, Brand Ambassador
       with Inland Residential Real Estate Services LLC,
       LAQUINTA KING,
USCA11 Case: 23-12449      Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 04/03/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-12449

       in Her Oﬃcial Capacity As Regional Trainer, with Inland Residen-
       tial
       Real Estate Services, LLC, et al.,

                                                     Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Alabama
                  D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00493-WKW-CWB
                           ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and GRANT,
       Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Velina Johnson appeals pro se the dismissal of her amended
       complaint against Inland Residential Real Estates Services, LLC,
       The Inland Real Estate Group of Companies, Inc., Bonnie Burris,
       Ashley Stoddart, LaQuinta King, and Montgomery MultiFamily
       Leaseco, LLC. The district court dismissed Johnson’s amended
       complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. We affirm.
               Johnson abandoned any argument that the district court
       erred in dismissing her amended complaint as a shotgun pleading
       by failing to raise that argument in her opening brief. Sapuppo v.
       Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014) (“When
USCA11 Case: 23-12449     Document: 39-1      Date Filed: 04/03/2024    Page: 3 of 3

       23-12449               Opinion of the Court                        3

       an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the
       grounds on which the district court based its judgment, [s]he is
       deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it
       follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.”). Even if she did
       not abandon her argument, the district court did not abuse its dis-
       cretion. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d
       1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). The district court warned Johnson of
       the consequences of failing to cure various enumerated deficiencies
       of her original complaint, but her amended complaint still failed to
       comply with the rules of procedure. Indeed, Johnson’s amended
       complaint was replete with allegations and dozens of exhibits re-
       garding an incoherent timeline of events that were not “obviously
       connected to any particular cause of action” and involved “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 1322–23. We
       “have repeatedly held that a District Court retains authority to dis-
       miss a shotgun pleading on that basis alone.” Jackson v. Bank of
       America N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1357 (11th Cir. 2018).
              We AFFIRM the dismissal of Johnson’s amended complaint
       and DENY her motions to expedite her appeal and to admit evi-
       dence.