Velina M. Johnson v. Inland Residential Real Estate Services, LLC, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12449
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
VELINA M. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
INLAND RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC,
(IRRES LLC),
THE INLAND REAL ESTATE GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC.,
BONNIE BURRIS,
in Her Official Capacity as Violation Regional Property Manager
with Inland Residential Real Estate Services LLC,
ASHLEY STODDART,
in Her Official Capacity As Property Manager, Brand Ambassador
with Inland Residential Real Estate Services LLC,
LAQUINTA KING,
USCA11 Case: 23-12449 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12449
in Her Official Capacity As Regional Trainer, with Inland Residen-
tial
Real Estate Services, LLC, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00493-WKW-CWB
____________________
Before WILLIAM P RYOR , Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and G RANT,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Velina Johnson appeals pro se the dismissal of her amended
complaint against Inland Residential Real Estates Services, LLC,
The Inland Real Estate Group of Companies, Inc., Bonnie Burris,
Ashley Stoddart, LaQuinta King, and Montgomery MultiFamily
Leaseco, LLC. The district court dismissed Johnson’s amended
complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. We affirm.
Johnson abandoned any argument that the district court
erred in dismissing her amended complaint as a shotgun pleading
by failing to raise that argument in her opening brief. Sapuppo v.
Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014) (“When
USCA11 Case: 23-12449 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-12449 Opinion of the Court 3
an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the
grounds on which the district court based its judgment, [s]he is
deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it
follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.”). Even if she did
not abandon her argument, the district court did not abuse its dis-
cretion. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d
1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). The district court warned Johnson of
the consequences of failing to cure various enumerated deficiencies
of her original complaint, but her amended complaint still failed to
comply with the rules of procedure. Indeed, Johnson’s amended
complaint was replete with allegations and dozens of exhibits re-
garding an incoherent timeline of events that were not “obviously
connected to any particular cause of action” and involved “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.” Id. at 1322–23. We
“have repeatedly held that a District Court retains authority to dis-
miss a shotgun pleading on that basis alone.” Jackson v. Bank of
America N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1357 (11th Cir. 2018).
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Johnson’s amended complaint
and DENY her motions to expedite her appeal and to admit evi-
dence.
USCA11 Case: 23-12449 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --