HOWARD
v.
HINSON

N.D. Fla. | 2023-03-27
No. 4:22-cv-97
District Court, N.D. Florida (2023)

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.

Holding

The court held that the complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed it, granting the plaintiff one final opportunity to amend.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff, a disbarred attorney proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging numerous criminal and civil violations against multiple defendants. Defe…

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.

Topics
Civil Rico Conspiracy Law Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Civil Theft

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Rico cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

12-14; ECF No. 96 at 11-13. Because the magistrate judge treated the J.B. Harris motion as one for summary judgment, ECF No. 48 at 2, he did not recommend granting that motion on a shotgun-pleading basis, ECF No. 97.2

OVERRULED. The reports and recommendations (ECF Nos. 94-97) are ACCEPTED in part; they are incorporated into this order only to the extent that they conclude the court has jurisdiction and that the complaint is a shotgun pleading. The motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 36, 39, 45, 50, 75-1) are GRANTED. The first amended complaint (ECF No. 13) is DISMISSED. Howard will have one final chance to amend. His motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 106), which he filed shortly before this order issued, is DENIED as moot.

Howard must file an amended complaint within fourteen days. He may refile the one attached to ECF No. 106. (The court expresses no view here on whether that complaint would be a shotgun pleading or otherwise states a claim). Or he may file a different amended complaint. If he does not amend, the dismissal will be with prejudice, and the file will be closed. If he does amend, Defendants will have fourteen days to respond, and the magistrate judge will conduct further appropriate proceedings. SO ORDERED on March 27, 2023. s/ Allen Winsor United States District Judge

Footnotes
1 Hinson and Jeter also challenged Howard’s Article III standing, ECF No. 50 at 17-18, which the magistrate judge did not resolve, ECF No. 94 at 20-21. I recognize, like the magistrate judge, that Hinson and Jeter’s standing argument is truly one about whether Howard can state a claim based on how the Florida Bar ignored other lawyers’ alleged misconduct. I separately conclude now that the complaint does allege standing: Howard claims Defendants’ conduct caused his disbarment. 2 I instead treated the J.B. Harris motion as a motion to dismiss. I conclude that the complaint is a shotgun pleading and that it should be dismissed on that basis. The magistrate judge’s reasoning explaining why it is a shotgun complaint, ECF No. 95 at 12-14; ECF No. 96 at 11-13, is adopted and incorporated into this order. I separately recognize here that the complaint is replete with conclusory and immaterial allegations, does not specify what facts support what claims against specific Defendants, and generally fails to put Defendants on fair notice of the claims against them. Indeed, much of the complaint is block quotations not clearly relating to any particular claim or most Defendants. Howard himself does not object to repleading. He acknowledges the need for clarity. See ECF No. 102 at 6-7 (saying that he is “happy” to amend such that “Defendants can more clearly respond to the complaint,” and that he “does ‘not’ intend to stand on the current [complaint]”); ECF No. 70 at 18-19 (“Plaintiff agrees that [the] facts need to be more specifically pled . . . .”); ECF No. 101 at 2; ECF No. 44 at 15. Regardless, the complaint is plainly a shotgun pleading. While Hinson and Jeter did not move to dismiss on this basis, “nothing should stop District Courts from demanding, on their own initiative, that . . . parties replead the case.” Paylor v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 748 F. 3d 1117, 1127 (11th Cir. 2014); see also Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F. 3d 1313, 1321 n.10 (11th Cir. 2015); Toth v. Antonacci, 788 F. App’x 688, 690-91 (11th Cir. 2019). Because I dismiss on shotgun-pleading grounds, there is no need to address remaining defenses. Nor is there any need to consider the parties’ extensive exhibits beyond the complaint. Howard’s motion to accept his responses to the reports and recommendations as timely filed (ECF No. 104) is GRANTED. The objections in those responses are

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw