Kimberly M. Blochowicz v. Robert Wilkie, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13509
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00111-JRH-BKE
KIMBERLY M. BLOCHOWICZ,
Phd, MSN, RN, ADA Advocate for Jeffrey M.
Blochowicz,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
JEFFREY M. BLOCHOWICZ,
Plaintiff,
versus
ROBERT WILKIE,
Individually and in his official capacity as
Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
DR. PAUL LAWRENCE,
Individually and in his official capacity as
Under Secretary for Benefits,
MARGARITA DEVLIN,
Individually and in her official capacity as
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Benefits,
KENNETH A. WOLF,
Individually and in his official capacity as
Office of Accountability and Whistleblower
USCA11 Case: 20-13509 Date Filed: 04/26/2021 Page: 1 of 6

-- 1 of 6 --

2
Protection, Triage Case Manager,
CHRISTOPHER WUNSCH,
Individually and in his official capacity as
HR, Specialist/District Reasonable,
Accommodation Coordinator, Veterans
Benefit Administration, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(April 26, 2021)
Before WILSON, JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kimberly Blochowicz, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice her 335-page amended complaint as an impermissible
shotgun pleading, in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). On appeal,
Blochowicz does not argue that her amended complaint conformed to Rule 8(a).
In any event, such an argument would be meritless. After careful review, we
therefore affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Blochowicz initiated this action by filing a 331-page complaint, with over
500 pages of exhibits attached, alleging that at least 45 defendants, in their
individual and official capacities, violated nearly a dozen statutes and the First,
USCA11 Case: 20-13509 Date Filed: 04/26/2021 Page: 2 of 6

-- 2 of 6 --

3
Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth
Amendments.1 A magistrate judge concluded that the complaint was the
“quintessential shotgun pleading” prohibited by this Court’s precedent because the
complaint included multiple counts that each adopted the allegations of all
preceding counts and was replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts
untethered to legal claims. Doc. 5 at 1 (citing Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075,
1131 (11th Cir. 2001)).2 The magistrate judge struck the pleading and directed
Blochowicz to file an amended complaint in compliance with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Blochowicz responded to the magistrate judge’s order by filing a 335-page
amended complaint containing the same defects that plagued the original
complaint. The district court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice
based on Blochowicz’s “repeated submission of shotgun pleadings which fail to
satisfy the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”3 Doc.
11 at 13. This is Blochowicz’s appeal.
1 The complaint was filed by Kimberly Blochowicz on behalf of her husband Jeffrey M.
Blochowicz, who later joined the action.
2 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
3 In its dismissal order, the district court also denied two motions Blochowicz filed.
Because she has not challenged those rulings on appeal, we do not address them. See Timson v.
Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
USCA11 Case: 20-13509 Date Filed: 04/26/2021 Page: 3 of 6

-- 3 of 6 --

4
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the dismissal of a shotgun pleading under Rule 8 for an abuse of
discretion. Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2018).
Although pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than pleadings
drafted by lawyers, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), pro se litigants are
bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835,
837 (11th Cir. 1989). “[I]ssues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are
deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
III. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Blochowicz does not argue that the district court erred by
dismissing her complaint as a shotgun pleading. She has therefore waived any
argument to that effect. See Timson 518 F.3d at 874. In any event, such an
argument would be meritless, as Blochowicz’s amended complaint was a shotgun
pleading that failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to contain “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A so-called shotgun complaint violates Rule 8 because it
“fail[s]. . . to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and
the grounds upon which each claim rests” and “waste[s] scarce judicial resources,
inexorably broaden[s] the scope of discovery, wreak[s] havoc on appellate court
USCA11 Case: 20-13509 Date Filed: 04/26/2021 Page: 4 of 6

-- 4 of 6 --

5
dockets, and undermine[s] the public’s respect for the courts.” Shabanets,
878 F.3d at 1295 (internal quotation marks omitted). We have described four
characteristics of shotgun complaints. They (1) “contain[] multiple counts where
each count adopts all 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
different counts; and (4) assert “multiple claims against multiple defendants
without specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or
omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is brought against.” Weiland v.
Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015).
Litigants are entitled to at least one chance to remedy the deficiencies that render a
complaint an impermissible shotgun pleading. Shabanets, 878 F.3d at 1296.
The district court correctly concluded that Blochowicz’s amended complaint
was a shotgun pleading. The amended complaint exhibited three of the four
characteristics consistent with impermissible shotgun pleadings by containing
multiple counts in which each count adopted all the allegations and facts of all
preceding counts; conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected
to any particular cause of action; and multiple claims against multiple defendants
without specifying which of the defendants were responsible for which acts or
which of the defendants the claim was brought against. And although Blochowicz
USCA11 Case: 20-13509 Date Filed: 04/26/2021 Page: 5 of 6

-- 5 of 6 --

6
was afforded the opportunity to remedy these defects by the magistrate judge, who
explained why the original complaint was defective and how to draft a satisfactory
one, her amended complaint did not comply with these requirements. The district
court therefore did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed without prejudice
Blochowicz’s shotgun complaint after she had been afforded a second opportunity
to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
We affirm the district court’s judgment.4
AFFIRMED.
4 In her appellate brief, Blochowicz makes a number of other requests of this Court,
including the requests that we order United States Marshals to serve summonses on the
defendants and that she be allowed to record courtroom audio using a personal device. Insofar as
those requests might be construed as motions, we deny them as moot. We also deny
Blochowicz’s motion to expedite the mandate.
USCA11 Case: 20-13509 Date Filed: 04/26/2021 Page: 6 of 6

-- 6 of 6 --