GRAYBILL v. BARFIELD et al

Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
ROLAND GRAYBILL,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-245-TKW/MJF
CALHOUN COUNTY
CLERK OF COURT and
CALHOUN COUNTY TAX
OFFICERS,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Despite 	the 	undersigned 	affording 	Plaintiff 	an 	opportunity 	to
supplement and clarify his allegations in a third amended complaint,
Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is a so-called “shotgun” pleading that
violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because Plaintiff failed to
comply 	with 	the 	undersigned’s 	order, 	and 	because 	Plaintiff’s 	third
amended complaint is a “shotgun pleading” that violates the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the District Court should dismiss this civil
action without prejudice.
Case 5:25-cv-00245-TKW-MJF Document 21 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
B ACKGROUND
Plaintiff 	is 	proceeding 	pro 	se. 	On 	December 	8, 	2025, 	the
undersigned struck Plaintiff’s first amended complaint because it was a
so-called “shotgun pleading.” Doc. 14. The undersigned ordered Plaintiff
to file an amended complaint, on the court-approved form, that complied
with the applicable legal standards.
On January 2, 2026, Plaintiff impermissibly filed two amended
complaints. 	Docs. 	15, 	16. 	Consequently, 	the 	undersigned 	ordered
Plaintiff to file one complaint that complied with the undersigned’s order
dated December 8, 2025. Doc. 19.
On January 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed his third amended complaint.
Doc. 20. Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is a shotgun pleading.
Although Plaintiff utilized the court-approved form to draft his third
amended complaint, in his third amended complaint, he instructs the
District Court to review attachments to 	the 	amended complaint to
ascertain the 	specific facts and claims. These 	exhibits are the two
amended complaints that Plaintiff impermissibly attempted to file on
January 2, 2026. Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s exhibits are inconsistent, fail
Case 5:25-cv-00245-TKW-MJF Document 21 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and they violate Rule
8(a).
Thus, the District Court can only guess as to what claims Plaintiff
is attempting to assert, against whom he is asserting each claim, and
what facts—if any—support each claim Plaintiff is attempting to assert.
For these reasons, the third-amended complaint is a shotgun pleading.
D ISCUSSION
A civil complaint filed in federal court 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). Furthermore, “each claim founded on a
separate transaction or occurrence. . . must be stated in a separate count
. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “A so-called ‘shotgun pleading’ is a complaint
that violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or 10(b), or both.”
Toth v. Antonacci, 788 F. App’x 688, 690 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Weiland
v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir.
2015)).
“A district court has the ‘inherent authority to control its docket and
ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits,’ which includes the ability to
dismiss a complaint on shotgun pleading grounds.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v.
Case 5:25-cv-00245-TKW-MJF Document 21 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Weiland, 792
F.3d at 1320). A district court that receives a shotgun pleading must sua
sponte give a plaintiff “one chance to replead.” Id. at 1296.
Once a pro se litigant has been given that opportunity to remedy
deficiencies of his complaint and squanders that opportunity by filing
another shotgun pleading, the district court has the authority to dismiss
the complaint on shotgun pleading grounds. Id. at 1295; Byrne v. Nezhat,
261 F.3d 1075, 1133 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Foudy v. Indian River Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (“Federal courts
possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply
with a court order.”) (citations omitted).
The undersigned provided Plaintiff multiple opportunities to file an
amended complaint that complies with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Docs. 14, 19. Plaintiff failed to comply with the
undersigned’s orders and instead filed impermissible shotgun pleadings.
Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the undersigned’s orders and
has failed to comply with Rule 8 and Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the District Court should dismiss this civil action.
Case 5:25-cv-00245-TKW-MJF Document 21 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
C ONCLUSION
The undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the District
Court:
1. 	DISMISS this action without prejudice; and
2. 	DIRECT 	the clerk of the court to terminate all pending
motions and close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 26th day of January 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge 	to 	address 	preliminary 	matters 	and to 	make
recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed
findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	report 	and
recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may
appear 	on 	the 	electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s
internal use only and does not control. An objecting
party must serve a copy of the objections on all other
parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate
judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a
report 	and 	recommendation 	waives 	the 	right 	to
challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th
Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:25-cv-00245-TKW-MJF Document 21 Filed 01/26/26 Page 5 of 5