GUTMANN-CROWN v. GUTMANN

Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
CLARICE MACHIA
GUTMANN-CROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-365-TKW-MJF
STEPHEN FRANCIS
GUTMANN, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In 	this 	§ 	1983 	action, 	the 	undersigned 	struck 	Plaintiff’s 	first
amended 	complaint 	because 	it 	was 	a 	“shotgun” 	pleading. 	Doc. 	12.
Undeterred, Plaintiff responded by filing yet another shotgun pleading.
Doc. 	13. 	Because 	the 	undersigned 	provided 	Plaintiff 	with 	detailed
instructions to assist her in complying with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Rules, and because Plaintiff elected to disregard
the undersigned’s order and file yet another shotgun pleading, the
District Court should dismiss this civil action.
Case 5:25-cv-00365-TKW-MJF Document 14 Filed 05/18/26 Page 1 of 8

Page 2 of 8
B ACKGROUND
On December 22, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this civil action by filing
a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Doc. 1. On the same day,
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. Doc. 3.
A. 	The 	Undersigned 	Struck 	Plaintiff’s 	First 	Amended
Complaint Because it was a “Shotgun Pleading”
Because Plaintiff’s first amended complaint violated Rule 8(a) and
Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the undersigned struck
the first amended complaint and ordered Plaintiff to replead. Doc. 12.
The undersigned provided Plaintiff detailed instructions to ensure that
Plaintiff complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. Among
other things, the undersigned specifically ordered Plaintiff not to adopt
the 	allegations of preceding counts in subsequent counts. 	Id. 	at 	4.
Pursuant to Local Rule 5.7(A), the undersigned also ordered Plaintiff to
use the complaint form approved for mandatory use by pro se plaintiffs
in the Northern District of Florida.
B. 	In Violation of the Undersigned’s Order, Plaintiff Files a
Second 	Amended 	Complaint 	that 	also 	is 	a 	“Shotgun”
Pleading
On May 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 13. Plaintiff purports to sue six named
Case 5:25-cv-00365-TKW-MJF Document 14 Filed 05/18/26 Page 2 of 8

Page 3 of 8
Defendants and twenty-five “John Doe” Defendants. Id. at 2. Plaintiff
attempts to assert the following claims:
• 	“Violation of Due Process (Fourteenth Amendment)”;
• 	“Interference with Parental Rights”; and
• 	“Joint Action/Conspiratorial Conduct.”
Doc. 13 at 5–6.
Contrary 	to 	the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	and 	the
undersigned’s 	order, 	Plaintiff’s 	second 	amended 	complaint 	includes
counts 	that 	adopt 	and 	incorporate 	preceding 	counts. 	Furthermore,
Plaintiff violated the Local Rules and the undersigned’s order by not
using the mandatory complaint form approved for use in the Northern
District of Florida. Doc. 13.
D ISCUSSION
A. 	Plaintiff’s 	Second 	Amended 	Complaint 	is 	a 	“Shotgun”
Pleading that Violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint constitutes an impermissible
“shotgun” pleading that violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A civil complaint filed in federal court must contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Furthermore, “each claim founded on a
Case 5:25-cv-00365-TKW-MJF Document 14 Filed 05/18/26 Page 3 of 8

Page 4 of 8
separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count
or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). The purpose of these rules is “to require
the 	pleader to 	present 	his 	claims discretely 	and 	succinctly” 	so 	the
opposing party and the court can discern the nature of the plaintiff’s
claims. 	Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021)
(quoting Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320
(11th Cir. 2015)). “A so-called ‘shotgun pleading’ is a complaint that
violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or 10(b), or both.” Toth
v. Antonacci, 788 F. App’x 688, 690 (11th Cir. 2019).
“A district court has the ‘inherent authority to control its docket and
ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits,’ which includes the ability to
dismiss a complaint on shotgun pleading grounds.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v.
Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Weiland, 792
F.3d at 1320). A district court that receives a shotgun pleading must sua
sponte give a plaintiff “one chance to remedy such deficiencies.” Id. But
once a pro se litigant has been given that opportunity to remedy the
deficiencies and squanders the opportunity by filing another shotgun
pleading, the district court has the authority to dismiss the complaint on
Case 5:25-cv-00365-TKW-MJF Document 14 Filed 05/18/26 Page 4 of 8

Page 5 of 8
shotgun pleading grounds. Id. at 1295; Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075,
1133 (11th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff 	alleges 	three 	counts: 	“Violation 	of 	Due 	Process,”
“Interference with Parental Rights,” and “Joint Action/Conspiratorial
Conduct.” 	Doc. 	13 	at 	4. 	In 	each 	count 	Plaintiff 	states 	that 	she
“incorporates all prior paragraphs as though fully stated herein.” Id.
Plaintiff’s 	complaint 	therefore 	is 	a 	quintessential 	shotgun 	pleading
where each successive count impermissibly adopts the allegations of the
preceding counts.
This manner of pleading causes “each successive count to carry all
that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire
complaint.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321. As a result, “each count is replete
with factual allegations that could not possibly be material to that
specific count, and . . . any allegations that are material are buried
beneath 	innumerable 	pages 	of 	rambling 	irrelevancies.” 	Magluta 	v.
Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). This plainly violates the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321–22; Magluta,
256 F.3d at 1284.
Case 5:25-cv-00365-TKW-MJF Document 14 Filed 05/18/26 Page 5 of 8

Page 6 of 8
As noted above, the undersigned specifically instructed Plaintiff not
to file a second amended complaint where each successive count adopted
the allegations of the preceding counts. Doc. 12 at 2–3. Plaintiff blatantly
disregarded the undersigned’s clear instructions despite being afforded
an opportunity to correct various deficiencies. Because Plaintiff’s second
amended complaint is a “shotgun” pleading, the District Court should
dismiss this action.
B. 	Plaintiff Violated a Court Order and Local Rule 5.7(A)
There is a second, independent reason the District Court should
dismiss this civil action: Plaintiff failed to comply with a court order and
her second amended complaint violates Local Rule 5.7(A).
“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint
for failure to comply with a court order” and the Local Rules. Foudy v.
Indian River Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017)
(citations omitted); McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301, 1308 (11th Cir.
2025) (“Dismissal without prejudice was an appropriate exercise of the
district court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and enforce the
local rules.”); N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (authorizing the court to dismiss an
Case 5:25-cv-00365-TKW-MJF Document 14 Filed 05/18/26 Page 6 of 8

Page 7 of 8
action, or any claim within it, “[i]f a party fails to comply with an
applicable rule or a court order”).
Rule 5.7(A) of the Local Rules for the Northern District of Florida
requires pro se litigants suing under § 1983 to use the court’s civil-rights
complaint form. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A). On April 17, 2026, the
undersigned notified Plaintiff that her first amended complaint violated
Local Rule 5.7(A). Doc. 12 at 5–6. The undersigned ordered Plaintiff to
use the mandatory form for any subsequent complaint. Id.
Plaintiff violated Local Rule 5.7(A) and the undersigned’s order of
April 17, 2026, insofar as her second amended complaint is not on the
form approved for use in the Northern District of Florida. Because
Plaintiff violated the Local Rules and a court order, the District Court
also should dismiss this civil action pursuant to its inherent authority to
manage its docket and enforce the Local Rules.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
recommends that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this civil action; and
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
Case 5:25-cv-00365-TKW-MJF Document 14 Filed 05/18/26 Page 7 of 8

Page 8 of 8
At Pensacola, Florida this 18th day of May 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to
these proposed findings and recommendations must be
filed within fourteen days of the date of the report and
recommendation. 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. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:25-cv-00365-TKW-MJF Document 14 Filed 05/18/26 Page 8 of 8