Reginald Dawson v. City of Jacksonville

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12365
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
REGINALD DAWSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE,
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, Municipal
Code Compliance,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 22-12365 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2023 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12365
D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-01041-HES-LLL
____________________
Before J ORDAN, JILL PRYOR , and B RANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Dawson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s order dismissing with prejudice his amended complaint
against the City of Jacksonville as an impermissible shotgun plead-
ing. After careful review, we affirm.
I.
Dawson initially filed this action against the city in state
court. The city removed the action to federal court and then
moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it was a shotgun
pleading. The district court agreed and granted the motion to dis-
miss but allowed Dawson to file an amended complaint.
After Dawson filed an amended complaint, the city again
moved to dismiss on the basis that Dawson had filed a shotgun
pleading. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the
action with prejudice. It explained that the amended complaint was
a shotgun pleading because it was “replete with conclusory, vague,
and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular
cause of action” and also “assert[ed] multiple claims against
USCA11 Case: 22-12365 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2023 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

22-12365 Opinion of the Court 3
multiple defendants without specifying which claims are against
which defendants.” Doc. 22 at 2 (internal quotation marks omit-
ted).1
This is Dawson’s appeal.
II.
We review the dismissal of a complaint as a shotgun plead-
ing for 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, issues
not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
III.
On appeal, Dawson does not argue that the district court
erred in dismissing his amended complaint as a shotgun pleading.
He has therefore abandoned the issue. See Timson 518 F.3d at 874.
Even if Dawson had not abandoned this issue, however, we would
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dis-
missing the amended complaint as a shotgun pleading.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require 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). In addition, the
complaint must “state its claims . . . in numbered paragraphs, each
limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed.
1 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
USCA11 Case: 22-12365 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2023 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-12365
R. Civ. P. 10(b). The purpose of these rules is “to require the
pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly, so that, his
adversary can discern what he is claiming and frame a responsive
pleading.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313,
1320 (11th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Complaints that violate these rules are often referred to as
“shotgun pleadings.” Id. A shotgun pleading “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 dockets, and undermine[s] the public’s re-
spect for the courts.” Shabanets, 878 F.3d at 1295 (internal quotation
marks omitted). We have identified four categories of shotgun
pleadings: (1) those that “contain[] multiple counts where each
count adopts all allegations of all preceding counts;” (2) those that
are “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obvi-
ously connected to any particular cause of action;” (3) those that
fail to “separat[e] into a different count each cause of action or
claim for relief”; and (4) those that “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, 792 F.3d at 1321–23.
A district court has the inherent authority to dismiss a com-
plaint on shotgun-pleading grounds. Shabanets, 878 F.3d at 1295.
When a plaintiff files a shotgun pleading and fails to request leave
USCA11 Case: 22-12365 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2023 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

22-12365 Opinion of the Court 5
to amend, a district court must sua sponte provide him with one
chance to replead before dismissing the case with prejudice. Id.
Here, the district court correctly concluded that Dawson’s
amended complaint was a shotgun pleading. A review of the
amended complaint shows that it consisted of conclusory, vague,
and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular
cause of action. See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1322. Further, because the
district court provided Dawson with an opportunity to amend his
complaint to address the deficiencies that it had previously identi-
fied and Dawson failed to do so, the court did not abuse its discre-
tion when it dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.2
AFFIRMED
2 Dawson also filed several motions with this Court requesting that a federal
court rehear several cases brought against him regarding compliance with
Jacksonville’s municipal code. The motions are DENIED.
USCA11 Case: 22-12365 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 10/23/2023 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --