RUIZ
v.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this civil rights case, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff Ruiz's amended complaint as a defective "shotgun pleading" that failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The Court granted Ruiz's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his complaint with prejudice, finding any further amendment would be futile.
The Court affirmed dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice because it failed to comply with Rule 8(a) pleading requirements and any further amendment would be futile. The motion for leave to amend was denied, and the preliminary injunction motion was denied as moot.
[1] A complaint that incorporates all prior allegations into each successive count, thereby obscuring the basis for individual claims, constitutes an impermissible shotgun pl…
[2] A court may dismiss a complaint with prejudice when it fails to state a claim and any further amendment would be futile.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“shotgun pleading that fails to comply with the basic pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) by incorporating all prior allegations into each successive count and obscuring the basis for individual claims”
Establishes the primary defect in Plaintiff's amended complaint that warranted dismissal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Ramon Ruiz filed a civil action and submitted an amended complaint. The amended complaint was characterized as a "shotgun pleading" that inc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Futility Of Amendment cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein's Report and Recommendation (DE 41) (“Report”) on Plaintiff Ramon Ruiz's ("Plaintiff') Emergency Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (DE 3) (“IFP Motion”), his Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (“Motion to Amend") (DE 28) and his Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Preliminary Injunction Motion”) (DE 4).
In the Report, Judge Elfenbein recommends that Plaintiff's IFP Motion be granted, but that his Amended Complaint (DE 8) be dismissed without prejudice as it constitutes an impermissible “shotgun pleading that fails to comply with the basic pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) by incorporating all prior allegations into each successive count and obscuring the basis for individual claims[.]” (DE 41 at 9 n.5.) Judge Elfenbein also recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend be denied as any further amendment would be futile. (Id. at 11–12.) Specifically, “the proposed [second amended] Complaint continues to conflate distinct legal theories and unrelated factual events,” and “continues to rely on a shotgun format and does not address the pleading deficiencies of the
Amended Complaint[.]” (Id.) Finally, Judge Elfenbein recommends that Plaintiff's Preliminary Injunction Motion be denied as moot. (Id. at 2, 12.)
Plaintiff timely objected to the Report. (DE 47; DE 57.) Upon a de novo review of the Report, the record, and applicable law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Judge Elfenbein's Report (DE 41) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED to the extent consistent with this Order.
2. Plaintiff's IFP Motion (DE 3) is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (DE 8) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. [fn 1]
4. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (DE 28) is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff's Preliminary Injunction Motion (DE 4) is DENIED AS MOOT.
6. All hearings, trial, and deadlines are CANCELED. All remaining pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, on this 13th day of August, 2025.
KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[fn 1]: Although Judge Elfenbein recommended dismissal without prejudice, dismissal with prejudice is warranted here because the amended complaint fails to state a claim, and any further amendment would be futile. See Davis v. Fort Lauderdale Police Dep't (Internal Affairs), No. 23-10034, 2024 WL 548686, at *2 (11th Cir. Feb. 12, 2024) (“А dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is a dismissal on the merits and with prejudice.”) (citation omitted); see also Corbitt v. Wood, 677 F. App'x 596, 599 (11th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend where amendment would be futile).