Jose Yeyille v. Miami Dade County Public Schools, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13053
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-24624-CMA
JOSE YEYILLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MIAMI DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
LISA ROBERTSON,
in her individual and official capacity,
as Principal of John A. Ferguson Senior High School,
ARMANDINA ACOSTA-LEON,
in her individual and official capacity,
as Asst. Principal of John A. Ferguson Senior High School,
ASUNCION VALDES,
in her individual and official capacity,
as Payroll and Substitute Teacher locator of
John A. Ferguson Senior High School,
EGNA RIVAS,
in her individual and official capacity,
as Attendance Office Secretary of
John A. Ferguson Senior High School, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Case: 15-13053 Date Filed: 02/22/2016 Page: 1 of 7

-- 1 of 7 --

2
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 22, 2016)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Yeyille, a lawyer proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
dismissal with prejudice of his third amended complaint, as well as its denial of his
motion for relief from that judgment. Yeyille argues on appeal that the district
court abused its discretion by dismissing his complaint with prejudice, because his
148-page, 30-count complaint was not a “shotgun pleading.” He also argues that
the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for relief from the
judgment, because the district court’s dismissal order violated his Seventh
Amendment right to a jury trial. After careful consideration, we affirm.
I.
A district court is authorized to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court
order or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In
“extreme circumstances,” the dismissal may be with prejudice. See Goforth v.
Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985). We review such dismissals for
abuse of discretion. Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th
Case: 15-13053 Date Filed: 02/22/2016 Page: 2 of 7

-- 2 of 7 --

3
Cir. 1999) (per curiam). A Rule 41(b) dismissal with prejudice is appropriate only
when there is “a clear record of willful contempt and an implicit or explicit finding
that lesser sanctions would not suffice.” Id. (quotation omitted). “[D]ismissal
upon disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned,
generally is not an abuse of discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837
(11th Cir. 1989). Also, while we ordinarily construe pleadings filed by pro se
parties liberally, this rule does not apply when the litigant is an attorney. Olivares
v. Martin, 555 F.2d 1192, 1194 n.1 (5th Cir. 1977).1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires pleadings to contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” with
each allegation framed in “simple, concise, and direct” terms. Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2), (d)(1). To the extent possible, each claim should be presented in a separate
paragraph and limited to “a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
“Shotgun” pleadings are cumbersome, confusing complaints that do not
comply with these pleading requirements. We have repeatedly condemned
shotgun pleadings. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d
1313, 1321–23 nn.11–15 (11th Cir. 2015). There are four basic types of shotgun
pleadings: (1) those in which “each count adopts the allegations of all preceding
1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this Court
adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before
October 1, 1981. Id. at 1209.
Case: 15-13053 Date Filed: 02/22/2016 Page: 3 of 7

-- 3 of 7 --

4
counts;” (2) those that do not re-allege all preceding counts but are “replete with
conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular
cause of action”; (3) those that do not separate each cause of action or claim for
relief into a different count; and (4) those that assert multiple claims against
multiple defendants without specifying which applies to which. Id. at 1321–23.
“The unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun pleadings is that they fail to . . .
give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds
upon which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323.
Brevity is the soul of wit. Yeyille has filed several complaints of increasing
length and complexity, ending with a third amended complaint comprised of 403
paragraphs spanning 148 pages and alleging 30 counts, which sound in everything
from the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to the Equal
Protection Clause to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Despite an explicit
warning from the district court that his previous complaints were shotgun
pleadings and that his third amended complaint must be more concise and
organized, Yeyille significantly increased the length of that complaint and added
new claims. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing this
complaint with prejudice.
The district court correctly concluded that Yeyille’s third amended
complaint, like the previous versions, was a shotgun pleading. Rather than using
Case: 15-13053 Date Filed: 02/22/2016 Page: 4 of 7

-- 4 of 7 --

5
short and plain statements as required by the Federal Rules, the third amended
complaint included an 85-paragraph fact section spanning 31 pages, much of it
written in narrative, diary-like form. Many of the facts were not obviously related
to any of Yeyille’s claims, which apparently center on Ferguson Senior High
School’s practice of giving its substitute teachers administrative work when they
are not filling in for full-time teachers. For instance, Yeyille alleged that one of the
school’s police officers engaged in “attentive, but discreet, surveillance” of him,
that the assistant principal stood “within less than two feet” of him during a pep
rally, and that a coworker talked to him about Noah’s Ark. Indeed, many of the
facts alleged in Yeyille’s third amended complaint seem to just concern people
looking at him the wrong way. And while some of Yeyille’s counts referenced
particular paragraphs in the facts section, many did not. Several counts even
incorporated the entire facts section or other counts, explicitly or functionally.
This complaint is a quintessential shotgun pleading of the second type
identified in Weiland. See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321–22 (pleading that is “replete
with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any
particular cause of action”). Given Yeyille’s repeated refusal to reduce the length
of his complaint—even after he was warned to do so—we cannot say that the
district court abused its discretion by dismissing Yeyille’s third amended
complaint with prejudice. There is a record here of contumacious disregard for the
Case: 15-13053 Date Filed: 02/22/2016 Page: 5 of 7

-- 5 of 7 --

6
court’s orders by an attorney, as well as a specific finding by the court that no
lesser sanction would suffice. This satisfies the rigorous standard for dismissal
with prejudice.2 See Gratton, 178 F.3d at 1374.
II.
We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion. Am.
Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 1332, 1338 (11th Cir.
1999). Rule 60(b)(6) allows a party to secure relief from a judgment for “any other
reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). This clause “is an
extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances” as well as proof that “an extreme and unexpected hardship” will
result if relief is not granted. Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th
Cir. 1984) (quotation omitted).
Yeyille argues that he was entitled to relief from the district court’s
judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) because the court’s dismissal order violated his
Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. He appears to argue that the district
court’s pretrial dismissal of his complaint under the “dogma” of Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
2 The district court was not required to dismiss Yeyille’s two state-law claims without
prejudice. First, the state-law claims were secondary to his federal claims and did not
predominate the proceedings. See United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726–
27, 86 S. Ct. 1130, 1139 (1966) (“[I]f the federal claims are dismissed before trial . . . the state
claims should be dismissed as well. Similarly, if it appears that the state issues substantially
predominate . . . the state claims may be dismissed without prejudice and left for resolution to
state tribunals.” (citation omitted)). Second, Gibbs does not mandate dismissal without prejudice
even when the state-law claims do predominate. See id.
Case: 15-13053 Date Filed: 02/22/2016 Page: 6 of 7

-- 6 of 7 --

7
556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), usurped the jury’s fact-finding role. We
cannot agree.
Whether to grant a Rule 60(b)(6) motion is within the district court’s sound
discretion. Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
Yeyille has shown no exceptional circumstance that warrants relief. A plaintiff’s
right to a jury trial is not violated merely because his case is dismissed before trial.
See Garvie v. City of Ft. Walton Beach, 366 F.3d 1186, 1190 (11th Cir. 2004)
(holding that the court’s grant of summary judgment did not violate the plaintiff’s
Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, and describing the plaintiff’s argument
that it did as “very misleading”). There is no requirement to conduct a jury trial
when there is no genuine issue to be tried. See id.; see also Smith v. Kitchen, 156
F.3d 1025, 1029 (10th Cir. 1997) (applying this principle to a Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal); Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 748 F.3d 624, 631 n.5 (5th
Cir. 2014) (same). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Yeyille’s Rule 60(b) motion.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 15-13053 Date Filed: 02/22/2016 Page: 7 of 7

-- 7 of 7 --