GREEN v. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
JONATHAN GARRETT GREEN,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:25cv1502/MCR/ZCB
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW
CENTER,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff originally commenced this action in state court. 	(Doc. 1-
1). It was subsequently removed to this Court. (Doc. 1). Currently before
the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 	(Doc. 5). 	Plaintiff has
responded in opposition. (Docs. 7, 8).1 For the reasons below, the motion
1 Plaintiff includes a request for the Court to remand his case in his
response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 	(Doc. 7 at 4-5). 	His request
is procedurally improper. 	See, e.g., Est. of Diamond by Diamond v. ITM
TwentyFirst Servs., LLC, No. 21-80339-CV, 2021 WL 7630484, at *1 n.1
(S.D. Fla. June 17, 2021) (noting that a motion “raised in the context of
[a] Response is procedurally improper, as ‘a request for a court order
must be made by motion,’ not in a response memorandum to an opposing
party’s motion” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)). 	Because the request is
improper, the Court need not address it. 	But even if the Court were to
address it, Plaintiff’s request to remand would fail. Defendant’s removal
was 	procedurally 	proper, 	and 	Plaintiff’s 	amended 	complaint 	clearly
presents federal questions.
Case 3:25-cv-01502-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 12/08/25 Page 1 of 7

2
to 	dismiss 	should 	be 	granted 	because 	Plaintiff’s 	complaint 	is 	an
impermissible shotgun pleading.
I. Discussion
Defendants argue, inter alia, that the amended complaint (Doc. 1-1
at 14-19) should be dismissed because it is an impermissible shotgun
pleading that violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 5). The
Court agrees.
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).
Case 3:25-cv-01502-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 12/08/25 Page 2 of 7

3
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
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
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”
Case 3:25-cv-01502-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 12/08/25 Page 3 of 7

4
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 four
categories of shotgun pleadings. 	First, Plaintiff’s amended complaint
“does not separate each cause of action or claim for relief into a different
count.” 	Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1325 (cleaned up). 	Plaintiff’s amended
complaint contains no numbered paragraphs, in violation of Rule 10(b).
Rather, 	Plaintiff 	combines 	all 	of 	his 	unspecified 	claims 	into 	the
“Statement of Claims” section. 	By “lump[ing] multiple claims together”
into a few paragraphs, Plaintiff “forces [the Court] to play detective
rather than umpire.” Vargas v. Lincare, Inc., 134 F.4th 1150, 1162 (11th
Cir. 2025) (Tjoflat, J., concurring). And it leaves Defendant “to decipher
and 	attempt 	to 	respond 	to 	any 	possible 	claims 	lurking 	within 	the
allegations of the Complaint.” Savell v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., No.
3:18cv331/MCR/CJK, 2018 WL 7351687, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2018).
“That is not how litigation works.” 	Vargas, 134 F.4th at 1162; see also
Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1325 (identifying a shotgun pleading where a
complaint “does not separate each cause of action or claim for relief into
a different count”).
Case 3:25-cv-01502-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 12/08/25 Page 4 of 7

5
Second, 	Plaintiff’s 	complaint 	contains 	“conclusory, 	vague, 	and
immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of
action.” 	See Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1325. For instance, Plaintiff spends
several pages of his six-page amended complaint summarizing “Case
Law” that appears to have little to do with his case. 	(Doc. 1-1 at 16-18).
These summaries are immaterial and not obviously connected to any
particular cause of action or to the specific facts of Plaintiff’s case.
Plaintiff’s complaint also contains conclusory allegations with no
supporting factual explanation. The amended compliant repeatedly fails
to link any specific facts to claims or explain how Defendant’s actions
relate to any alleged violations of law. Plaintiff’s “Statement of Claim” is
barely one-page. 	(Doc. 1-1 at 15-16). 	In that section, Plaintiff claims to
suffer from a “mental health condition,” but he never specifies his
condition. 	(Id. at 15). 	He references Defendant’s failure to provide him
“reasonable 	accommodations,” 	but 	he 	never 	specifies 	what
accommodations he believes he was entitled to. (Id.). He also references
“unequal terms and conditions of employment (breach of employment
contract),” but he does not allege any unequal terms or conditions during
Case 3:25-cv-01502-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 12/08/25 Page 5 of 7

6
his employment. (Id.). These are just some of the conclusory allegations
contained throughout Plaintiff’s amended complaint.
For these reasons, 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) (cleaned up). Consistent
with Eleventh Circuit caselaw,2 Plaintiff should be provided with one
opportunity to file a second amended complaint that complies with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Northern
District of Florida.
2 The Eleventh Circuit has explained that a district court should give the
plaintiff “one chance to replead before dismissing his case with prejudice
on non-merits shotgun pleading grounds.” 	Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1326
(cleaned up). 	And in the “repleading order, the district court should
explain how the offending pleading violates the shotgun pleading rule so
that 	the 	party 	may 	properly 	avoid 	future 	shotgun 	pleadings.”
McDonough v. City of Homestead, 771 F. App’x 952, 955 (11th Cir. 2019)
(cleaned up).
Case 3:25-cv-01502-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 12/08/25 Page 6 of 7

7
II. Conclusion
For the reasons above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, (Doc. 5), be GRANTED to the
extent that it seeks dismissal because Plaintiff’s complaint is an
impermissible shotgun pleading.
2. Plaintiff be provided with fourteen days from the date of the
District Judge’s order regarding this recommendation to file a
second amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 8th day of December 2025.
/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-01502-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 12/08/25 Page 7 of 7