IGEIN v. AMAZON KINDLE DIRECT PUBLISHING et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
ABUDU JOHN IGEIN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 3:25cv2599/TKW/ZCB
AMAZON KINDLE
DIRECT PUBLISHING,
et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
action. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s amended complaint. (Doc. 6). The
Court is required to screen the amended complaint to determine if it is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 	28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 	Upon a review of the amended complaint, the
Court 	finds 	that 	it 	is 	an 	impermissible 	shotgun 	pleading. 	Because
Plaintiff previously submitted a shotgun pleading and was notified of the
deficiencies and provided an opportunity to amend, (Doc. 5), this case
should be dismissed.
Case 3:25-cv-02599-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 10

2
I. Discussion
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a
complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim” showing
that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 	And Rule
10(b) requires a plaintiff to “state its claims [] in numbered paragraphs,
each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” 	Fed.
R. Civ. P. 10(b). 	“A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates either
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both.” Barmapov
v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021). Shotgun pleadings are
“flatly forbidden.” 	Id. 	And district courts have the “authority to dismiss
a shotgun pleading on that basis alone.” 	Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
898 F.3d 1348, 1357 (11th Cir. 2018).
The Eleventh Circuit has explained that there are four types of
shotgun pleadings: (1) “a complaint containing multiple counts where
each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each
successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a
combination of the entire complaint”; (2) “a complaint that is replete with
conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any
particular cause of action”; (3) “a complaint that does not separate each
Case 3:25-cv-02599-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 10

3
cause of action or claim for relief into a different count”; and (4) “a
complaint 	that 	asserts 	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.”
Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324-25 (cleaned up). 	What all four types of
shotgun pleadings have in common is “that they fail to one degree or
another, and in one way or another, to give the defendants adequate
notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim
rests.” 	Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1323
(11th Cir. 2015). 	And dismissing shotgun pleadings (or requiring a more
definite statement) is necessary because “district courts have neither the
manpower nor the time to sift through a morass of irrelevant facts in
order to piece together” a plaintiff’s claims. Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1327-
28 (Tjoflat, J., concurring).
Plaintiff’s 	amended 	complaint 	falls 	into 	at 	least 	two 	of 	the
categories of shotgun pleadings. First, it contains “multiple counts where
each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each
successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a
combination of the entire complaint.” 	Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324-25.
Case 3:25-cv-02599-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 10

4
Plaintiff’s 	amended 	complaint 	brings 	four 	different 	counts 	against
Defendants. 	(Doc. 6 at 4-5). 	Plaintiff, however, expressly realleges all
prior allegations in each of his counts. 	(See id. at ¶¶ 16, 22, 27, 32)
(realleging in all prior allegations).
This is problematic because by incorporating all prior allegations,
Plaintiff’s amended complaint “contain[s] multiple counts where each
count 	adopts 	the 	allegations 	of 	all 	preceding 	counts, 	causing 	each
successive count to carry all that came before[.]”1 Barmapov, 986 F.3d at
1324-25. 	Pleading in such a way causes Plaintiff’s “last count”—Count
IV—“to be a combination of the entire complaint.” 	Id. at 1325; see also
Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d
1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002) (finding a shotgun pleading realleging all
prior allegations leads “to a situation where most of the counts (i.e., all
but 	the 	first) 	contain 	irrelevant 	factual 	allegations 	and 	legal
conclusions”). 	This “mortal sin of re-alleging all preceding counts” is
1 “The court notes that incorporating previous counts and large sections
of a pleading into subsequent counts, by itself, does not necessarily
render a pleading ‘shotgun.’” McCullers v. Koch Foods of Alabama, LLC,
No. 1:24-CV-01496-RDP, 2025 WL 1436571, at *8 (N.D. Ala. May 19,
2025) “But, incorporating large swaths of allegations and ‘rolling’ counts
into other counts ‘down the line’ can do just that.” 	Id. (emphasis in
original).
Case 3:25-cv-02599-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 10

5
flatly prohibited. 	Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1322; see Keith v. DeKalb Cnty.,
Georgia, 749 F.3d 1034, 1045 n.39 (11th Cir. 2014) (“The complaint,
through its incorporation into successive counts all preceding allegations
and counts, is a quintessential ‘shotgun’ pleading—the sort of pleading
we have been roundly condemning for 30 years.”).
Second, the amended complaint “asserts 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.” 	Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1325 (cleaned up).
Plaintiff lists two Defendants in his amended complaint: 	(1) Amazon
Kindle Direct Publishing; and (2) Amazon.com, Inc. 	(Doc. 6 at 1). 	But
Plaintiff’s 	allegations 	and 	counts 	reference 	only 	“Amazon” 	or
“Defendants.” 	(Id. at 2-6). 	Plaintiff fails to specify which of the two
Defendants he refers to or, if he is referring to all Defendants, how each
Defendant contributed to the alleged violation. 	Plaintiff’s strategy of
grouping Defendants together without specifying the actions of each
Defendant is insufficient because Plaintiff fails to specify “which of the
defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the
Case 3:25-cv-02599-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 5 of 10

6
defendants the claim is brought against.”2 	Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1325
(cleaned up).; see also Magnum Constr. Mgmt., LLC v. WSP USA Sols.,
Inc., 522 F. Supp. 3d 1202, 1207 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (“[T]he Complaint makes
no individual allegations against any of the Defendants. Instead, it refers
throughout only to ‘Louis Berger,’ which the Complaint defines to mean
all Defendants collectively. Because the Complaint alleges at least The
Louis Berger Group, Inc. to be a separate, legally distinct entity, the
Complaint’s allegations against Defendants collectively as ‘Louis Berger’
impermissibly lump them together and render the Complaint a shotgun
pleading.”) (citation omitted); Mason v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 1:16-
CV-02867-CC-RGV, 2017 WL 6994577, at *13 (N.D. Ga. July 27, 2017)
(finding as a shotgun pleading a complaint replete with allegations
2 See also Schmidt v. Disney Parks, Experiences & Prods., Inc., 721 F.
Supp. 3d 1314, 1323 (M.D. Fla. 2024) (“[N]othing in the pleading rules
prohibits lodging the same claim against multiple defendants if they are
all alleged to have participated in the same acts rising to the claim.
However, unless it is possible that all defendants could have engaged in
the same conduct, a complaint that lumps together the defendants will
be found to be a shotgun pleading.”) (cleaned up), aff’d, 2025 WL 1826050
(11th Cir. July 2, 2025); Swanson v. Cobb Cnty. Dep’t of Fam. & Child.
Servs., No. 1:21-CV-04978-JPB, 2023 WL 2169044, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Feb.
21, 2023) (“Plaintiff is permitted to assert a single count against multiple
defendants; however, Plaintiff 	must identify what precise conduct is
attributable to each individual defendant separately in each count.”)
(emphasis added).
Case 3:25-cv-02599-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 6 of 10

7
against ‘Defendants’ and ‘Encore Capital,’ which plaintiffs defined to
include a parent company and several of its wholly-owned subsidiaries,
because it did not specify which defendant was responsible for which
specific act), adopted, 2017 WL 8186866 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 29, 2017).3
For the reasons above, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is a shotgun
pleading. 	It fails to “give the defendants adequate notice of the claims
against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” 	Arrington
v. Green, 757 F. App’x 796, 797 (11th Cir. 2018). 	The Court recognizes
that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and that pro se pleadings are “liberally
construed.” 	Nalco Co. LLC v. Bonday, 142 F.4th 1336, 1341 (11th Cir.
2025). 	But pro se litigants are still “required to conform to procedural
rules.” 	Roy v. Ivy, 53 F.4th 1338, 1346 (11th Cir. 2022). 	And a court is
not tasked with rewriting a deficient pleading, even if brought by a pro
3 See also Prolow v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 510 F. Supp. 3d 1303, 1310 (S.D.
Fla. 2021) (“Defendants are correct that the Complaint impermissibly
lumps the two Defendants together. Each Defendant is alleged to be [a]
distinct 	legal 	entit[y], 	but 	the 	Complaint 	does 	not 	adequately
differentiate between Defendants nor inform each Defendant separately
of the allegations that apply to it.”) (citation omitted); Cellco P’ship v.
Plaza Resorts Inc., No. 12-81238-CIV, 2013 WL 5436553, at *7 (S.D. Fla.
Sept. 27, 2013) (“Although the Complaint states that the entities are
‘affiliated’ and ‘act in concert’ with each other, these statements are
simply too conclusory.”).
Case 3:25-cv-02599-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 7 of 10

8
se party. 	Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th
Cir. 2014).
Plaintiff previously filed a shotgun pleading (Doc. 1), was told of the
deficiencies in this pleading, and provided with an opportunity to cure
those deficiencies by filing an amended complaint. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff was
also advised that a failure to correct the identified deficiencies would
result in a recommendation of dismissal. (Id. at 14). Plaintiff, however,
has filed an amended complaint that suffers from the same type of
deficiencies as his initial complaint. Thus, dismissal is warranted.4 	See
4 	Before the issuance of this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff
moved for leave to file a supplemental complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(d) to add claims against a new Defendant—Iron Fleet DSP LLC. (Doc.
9). 	Plaintiff’s motion references the proposed supplemental complaint
being filed as Exhibit H. 	(Id. at 4). 	But there is no Exhibit H included
with Plaintiff’s motion to supplement. (See id. at 9-15). Instead, Plaintiff
filed alongside his motion a proposed second amended complaint. 	(Doc.
10). 	This proposed pleading, however, does not list Iron Fleet as a
Defendant nor does it include any allegations against it. 	(Id.). 	Thus, it
is 	entirely 	unclear 	whether 	this 	filing 	is 	intended 	to 	serve 	as 	the
supplemental complaint or as a second amended complaint. 	To the
extent Plaintiff is using his motion to supplement as the supplemental
complaint, he is still improperly engaging in shotgun pleading because
the filing incorporates all prior allegations by reference. 	(Doc. 9 at 4)
(incorporating “prior allegations by reference”). And Plaintiff’s proposed
second amended complaint is also an improper shotgun pleading for the
same reasons already discussed in this Report and Recommendation—
namely, because it incorporates all prior allegations by reference and
asserts claims against multiple Defendants without specifying which of
Case 3:25-cv-02599-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 8 of 10

9
Jackson, 898 F.3d at 1358 (explaining that the district court should “give
the plaintiff one chance to remedy such deficiencies” before dismissing
the complaint as a shotgun pleading); see also Cornelius v. Bank of Am.,
NA, 585 F. App’x 996, 1000 (11th Cir. 2014) (“There is no indication that,
given a third bite at the apple, [Plaintiff] would correct the numerous
deficiencies in his complaint.”).
II. Conclusion
For the reasons above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s 	amended 	complaint 	(Doc. 	6) 	be 	DISMISSED
without prejudice5 as an impermissible shotgun pleading.
2. 	All pending motions be DENIED as moot.
the Defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of
the Defendants the claim is brought against. 	((Doc. 10 at ¶¶ 16, 22, 27,
32) 	(realleging 	all 	prior 	allegations); 	id. 	at 	2-6 	(using 	the 	phrases
“Defendants” 	or 	“Amazon” 	without 	specifying 	which 	Defendant(s)
Plaintiff is referring to). 	Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to supplement
and proposed second amended complaint do not change the conclusion
that this action should be dismissed without prejudice for impermissible
shotgun pleading. 	Because the Court recommends dismissal without
prejudice, Plaintiff can re-file all of his claims against all Defendants in
a single and procedurally proper complaint in a new case.
5 See Makozy v. United Parcel Serv., No. 24-13649, 2025 WL 1873311, at
*2 n.3 (11th Cir. July 8, 2025) (“A dismissal without prejudice generally
is not an abuse of discretion, even for a single procedural violation,
because the affected party may simply refile.”).
Case 3:25-cv-02599-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 9 of 10

10
3. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 20th day of January 2026.
/s/
Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
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. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-02599-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 01/20/26 Page 10 of 10