OWENS

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

a minor child, and L.Z.O., a minor child,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:21-cv-510-MMH-MCR vs.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

REVENUE and ASHLEY MOODY,

Defendants. /

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiffs Larael-Karris Owens, K.L.O. and L.Z.O., who are proceeding pro se, initiated the instant action on May 14, 2021, by filing a Complaint for a Civil Case and Memorandum of Law (Doc. 1) against Defendants the Florida Department of Revenue and the Attorney General Ashley Moody, in her official capacity.¹ At the time he initiated this case, Owens sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As such, and in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Magistrate Judge reviewed

“‘conform to procedural rules.’” Riley v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 222 F. App’x 897, 898 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Loren v. Sasser, 309 F. 3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002)).² The Rules require that a complaint contain “a short and plain

In citing to Riley, the Court notes that “[a]lthough an unpublished opinion is not binding . . . it is persuasive authority.” United States v. Futrell, 209 F. 3d 1286, 1289 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam); see generally Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 11th Cir. R. 36–2 (“Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority.”).   of a complaint are ‘vague and ambiguous - leaving the reader to guess at precisely what the plaintiff [is] claiming,’ the court should order a repleader.” Holbrook v. Castle Key Ins. Co., 405 F. App’x 459, 460 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F. 3d 1075, 1128 (11th Cir. 2001)). Moreover, in a case with multiple defendants, the complaint should contain specific allegations with respect to each defendant; generalized allegations “lumping” multiple defendants together are insufficient to permit the defendants, or the Court, to ascertain exactly what a plaintiff is claiming. See West Coast Roofing and Waterproofing, Inc. v. Johns Manville, Inc., 287 F. App’x 81, 86 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Ambrosia Coal & Const. Co. v. Pages Morales, 482 F. 3d 1309, 1317 (11th Cir. 2007) and Brooks v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 116 F. 3d 1364,

1381 (11th Cir. 1997)). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has a term for complaints which violate Rules 8 and 10 in the ways discussed above—shotgun pleadings. See Tran v. City of Holmes Beach, 817 F. App’x 911, 913 (11th Cir. 2020).

Significantly, although pro se pleadings such as Owens’ are construed more liberally than those drafted by attorneys, the Eleventh Circuit regardless has “little tolerance for shotgun pleadings.” See Arrington v. Green, 757 F. App’x 796, 797 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotations omitted). Here, the Amended Complaint is

“full of conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any   particular cause of action,” and it “does not separate each cause of action or claim for relief into different counts . . . .” Tran, 817 F. App’x at 913. Indeed, the Amended Complaint contains fourteen pages of overly long paragraphs with a “confusing combination of facts, legal analysis, and bare accusations.” See Thomason v. Ala. Home Builders Licensure Bd., 741 F. App’x 638, 641 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal of complaint, inter alia, for failure to comply with Rules 8 and 10). This manner of pleading fails to comply with Rules 8 and 10,

and ultimately, as with all types of shotgun pleadings, fails “‘to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.’” See Tran, 817 F. App’x at 913 (quoting Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F. 3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015)).

In light of the foregoing, the Court will strike the Amended Complaint for failure to comply with Rules 8 and 10 and the requirements of the Magistrate Judge’s June 11, 2021 Order. The Court will provide Owens with one final opportunity to properly draft his pleadings. Owens must utilize separate paragraphs, with “simple, concise, and direct” allegations, and separate each claim into distinct counts. See Thomason, 741 F. App’x at 641. Owens is cautioned that failure to comply with the requirements of the Court’s Orders and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may result in the dismissal of this

action without further notice. Id. (“The district court also has the power to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) and Rule 10(b).”). ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff[’s] Amended Complaint (Doc. 4) is STRICKEN. 2. Plaintiff Larael-Karris Owens shall file a second amended complaint consistent with the directives of this Order on or before December 30, 2021. Failure to do so may result in a dismissal of this action. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 9th day of December, 2021.

United States District Judge

Ie11 Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties