Christian Doscher v. Apologetics Afield, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13184
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
CHRISTIAN DOSCHER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES PATRICK HOLDING, et al.,
Defendants,
APOLOGETICS AFIELD, INC.,
a Florida Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
USCA11 Case: 22-13184 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2023 Page: 1 of 8

-- 1 of 8 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-13184
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cv-01322-WWB-EJK
____________________
Before J ORDAN , BRANCH, and A BUDU , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Christian Doscher, pro se, appeals the district court’s dismis-
sal without prejudice of his fourth amended complaint and the dis-
trict court’s dismissal with prejudice of his fifth amended complaint
based on the court’s conclusion that both filings were shotgun
pleadings. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the dismissal
of Doscher’s lawsuit.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Doscher filed his first complaint in the district court against
James Holding, alleging 27 counts of libel per se based on Holding’s
online posts on a website entitled “DoscherLeaks” about Doscher’s
prior lawsuits, mental stability, and litigious nature. The magis-
trate judge allowed Doscher to amend his complaint, finding that
he had failed to state a claim of libel per se. The magistrate judge
warned that failure to file an amended complaint addressing the
deficiency could result in dismissal of the case.
Doscher then filed an amended complaint against Holdings,
adding Apologetics Afield, Inc. (“Apologetics”) as a defendant. In
USCA11 Case: 22-13184 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2023 Page: 2 of 8

-- 2 of 8 --

22-13184 Opinion of the Court 3
the 148-page complaint, Doscher brought 32 allegations of libel per
se and libel per quod. The magistrate judge found that the second
amended complaint also failed to clearly state a claim for libel per
quod and granted Doscher leave a second time to amend the com-
plaint with another warning regarding the consequences of violat-
ing the pleading rules.
Doscher’s second amended complaint was dismissed as
moot after he filed a third amended complaint. The magistrate
judge found that the third amended complaint also violated the
pleading requirements in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, but the judge allowed
Doscher to file yet another amended complaint, warning him again
that if the same problems appeared in another amended complaint,
his case could be dismissed.
In his fourth amended complaint, Doscher brought 187
counts of libel per se against Apologetics and a new defendant,
Jiaoshi Ministries, Inc. (“Jiaoshi Ministries”). Spanning 134 pages,
Doscher included quotations of allegedly libelous online posts
from “DoscherLeaks,” which had been reposted to several other
blogs and websites, YouTube videos on a channel called “tektontv,”
and replies to comments on other websites. The comments re-
ferred to court filings or attorney statements from Doscher’s prior
lawsuits regarding his abuse of the judicial process, his vexatious or
frivolous litigation, his personality disorder, his emotional ma-
turity, and accusations of criminal activity. Allegedly libelous com-
ments cited in previous counts were often treated as a predicate for
other libel counts. The fourth amended complaint was replete
USCA11 Case: 22-13184 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2023 Page: 3 of 8

-- 3 of 8 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-13184
with citations to case law, and Doscher failed to specify which de-
fendant made which allegedly libelous statement.
Upon Apologetics’s motion to dismiss, the magistrate judge
issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that
Doscher’s fourth amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 10(b), and
this Court’s prohibition against shotgun pleadings.
Following Doscher’s objections, the district court reviewed
the R&R and concluded that Doscher’s fourth amended complaint
should be dismissed, but without prejudice. The district court
found that Doscher’s fourth amended complaint was vague and re-
petitive, with unsupported legal conclusions, immaterial facts, and
unnecessary citations to legal authorities. It warned Doscher that
his next amended complaint should be limited to the alleged facts
supporting his causes of action, without citing to legal authority,
and should specify which defendants were responsible for which
actions. It gave Doscher one last attempt to amend his complaint
and warned Doscher that failure to file an amended complaint
complying with its order would result in a dismissal with prejudice.
Doscher filed his fifth and final amended complaint only
against Apologetics. The complaint, spanning 213 pages, contained
187 counts of libel per se. Notably, his factual allegations appeared
to be the same as those from his fourth amended complaint, but
with additional allegations related to damages. Doscher’s allega-
tions were repetitive, with most of the counts predicated upon the
count preceding it. Moreover, without connection to any specific
USCA11 Case: 22-13184 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2023 Page: 4 of 8

-- 4 of 8 --

22-13184 Opinion of the Court 5
count, he alleged that Apologetics intended to harm him and
showed express malice, while also citing to actions Holding—a
non-party—took against him.
The district court sua sponte dismissed Doscher’s fifth
amended complaint with prejudice, determining that the com-
plaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading. It found that, de-
spite some modest changes, the amended complaint—now 80
pages longer than the previous one—still contained vague and re-
petitive allegations and unnecessary references to legal sources,
rendering it difficult if not impossible for the sole remaining de-
fendant—Apologetics—to respond. Ultimately, the district court
highlighted that Doscher had received multiple opportunities to
comply with pleadings rules but had shown an unwillingness to
abide by the court’s orders. Thus, the court concluded that dis-
missing the case with prejudice was appropriate. Doscher’s appeal
followed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the dismissal of a shotgun pleading
on Rule 8 or Rule 10 grounds for abuse of discretion. Weiland v.
Palm Beach Cnty. Sherriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015).
Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, we must affirm unless we
find that the district court made a clear error of judgment or ap-
plied the wrong legal standard. Rance v. Rocksolid Granit USA, Inc.,
583 F.3d 1284, 1286 (11th Cir. 2009). Although we construe plead-
ings filed by pro se parties liberally, pro se litigants must still conform
to procedural rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir.
USCA11 Case: 22-13184 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2023 Page: 5 of 8

-- 5 of 8 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-13184
2007). Our duty to liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s complaint
“is not the equivalent of a duty to re-write it for the plaintiff.” Snow
v. DirecTV, Inc., 450 F.3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8(a)(2). Further, claims should be stated “in numbered para-
graphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circum-
stances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Lengthy complaints that incorporate
dozens of paragraphs of allegations into each count are neither
“short” nor “plain.” Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1356
(11th Cir. 2018) (holding that a 28-page complaint with 123 para-
graphs that were each incorporated into all 16 counts “patently vi-
olate[d]” Rule 8); see also Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284
(11th Cir. 2001) (identifying a complaint as a shotgun pleading
when each count incorporated by reference the claims made in a
section of 146 numbered paragraphs of general factual allegations,
while also incorporating the allegations of the count or counts pre-
ceding it).
We have identified four categories of shotgun pleadings—
complaints that: (1) contain multiple counts where each count
adopts the allegations of all preceding counts; (2) are “replete with
conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected
to any particular cause of action”; (3) do not separate each cause of
action or claim for relief into separate counts; or (4) assert multiple
claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the
defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or against
USCA11 Case: 22-13184 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2023 Page: 6 of 8

-- 6 of 8 --

22-13184 Opinion of the Court 7
whom particular causes of action are being brought. Weiland, 792
F.3d at 1321-23. The unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun
pleadings is that they fail to one degree or another “to give the de-
fendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the
grounds upon which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323. This Circuit
has “little tolerance for shotgun pleadings” as “[t]hey waste scarce
judicial resources, inexorably broaden the scope of discovery,
wreak havoc on appellate court dockets, and undermine the pub-
lic’s respect for the courts.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d
1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks and brackets omitted)
(quoting Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 981-83
(11th Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)).
A district court may dismiss a complaint on shotgun plead-
ing grounds under its “inherent authority to control its docket and
ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits[.]” Weiland, 792 F.3d at
1320. In such cases, the district court must allow the litigant at least
one chance to remedy the deficiency before dismissing the case
with prejudice. Vibe Micro, Inc., 878 F.3d at 1296. If the court per-
mits the plaintiff to amend and explains in its repleading order how
the complaint violates the shotgun pleading rule, but the plaintiff
still fails to remedy the shotgun pleading issues, the court does not
abuse its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice. Id. at
1295-96.
As an initial matter, although the district court did not ex-
plicitly cite what rule it relied upon in dismissing Doscher’s fourth
USCA11 Case: 22-13184 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2023 Page: 7 of 8

-- 7 of 8 --

8 Opinion of the Court 22-13184
amended complaint, the order clearly referenced shotgun pleading
principles as the basis. Accordingly, we will review the dismissal of
the fourth amended complaint for an abuse of discretion. Under
this standard, the district court did not abuse its discretion because
Doscher’s fourth amended complaint was the quintessential exam-
ple of a shotgun pleading. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321-23. The dis-
trict court gave Doscher appropriate and specific instructions on
how to adequately plead his claims in a way that complied with
federal pleading standards. Yet, Doscher’s amended pleading was
still replete with vague or immaterial facts not connected to any
cause of action, relied on preceding counts as factual support for
his claims, failed to identify which defendant should be liable for
which alleged conduct, and contained multiple unnecessary legal
citations.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in dismiss-
ing Doscher’s fifth amended complaint with prejudice. The final
amended complaint contained deficiencies similar to his original
and other amended complaints despite the multiple opportunities
and instructions Doscher received to correct those problems. Do-
scher also received several warnings, and was therefore on notice,
that his failure to comply with federal pleading rules could result in
the dismissal of his case.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the district court’s dismis-
sals of the Appellant’s fourth and fifth amended complaints are
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-13184 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 09/18/2023 Page: 8 of 8

-- 8 of 8 --