METHVIN v. SANTA ROSA COUNTY SHERIFF et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
MEJZDA METHVIN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 3:26cv111/MCR/ZCB
OFFICER TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an amended
civil rights complaint. (Doc. 7). The Court must screen the complaint to
determine if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or
seeks 	monetary 	relief 	against 	immune 	defendants. 	28 	U.S.C. 	§
1915(e)(2)(B). Upon review, the Court concludes the amended complaint
is an impermissible shotgun pleading. Because Plaintiff previously filed
a shotgun pleading, was notified of the deficiency, and provided an
opportunity to amend (Doc. 5), this case should be dismissed.
I. Discussion
A. Plaintiff cannot proceed against unidentified Defendants.
Among others, Plaintiff sues two “Doe” Defendants. (Doc. 7 at 3-5).
Plaintiff was previously told (Doc. 5 at 7 n.2), however, that as “a general
Case 3:26-cv-00111-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 14

2
matter, 	fictitious-party 	pleading 	is 	not 	permitted 	in 	federal 	court.”
Richardson v. Johnson, 598 F.3d 734, 738 (11th Cir. 2010). 	Plaintiff
provides some description of the unidentified Defendants: John Doe is a
white male transport officer with red hair and visible tattoos on one arm
assigned to transport Plaintiff back to the Jail on December 16, 2022;
Jane Doe is a black female supervising officer (possibly a sergeant) with
braided hair who was in the small holding area near booking when
Plaintiff was restrained on December 16, 2022. (Doc. 7 at 4-5).
These descriptions are insufficient to enable service of process for
the claims against John and Jane Doe to proceed at this time.1 	See
Vielma 	v. 	Gruler, 	808 	F. 	App’x 	872, 	880 	(11th 	Cir. 	2020) 	(noting
unidentified defendants can be sued where a plaintiff’s description “is
sufficiently clear to allow service of process” but holding that descriptions
such as “male detective,” “one of the officers at the hospital,” “a female
white officer about 5 feet 10-11 inches in height,” or “a middle-aged white
male officer” were insufficient because “these descriptions include only
1 Because Plaintiff waited three years to file a lawsuit based on the events
of December 2022, “the passage of time since the complained-of conduct
occurred makes it increasingly difficult to locate even named defendants,
let alone those who are merely described.” 	Perkins, 2026 WL 360773, at
*2 and n.7 (noting the difficulty in serving Officer Chaney because
“Officer Chaney has not been an ADOC employee since June 2023”).
Case 3:26-cv-00111-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 14

3
general physical attributes and a title that is held by many individuals”
meaning they “fall well short of enabling a process server to identify a
specific individual” (cleaned up)); Perkins v. Crook, No. 2:25cv188, 2026
WL 360773, at *1-2 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 9, 2026) (striking claims against
unnamed defendants due to insufficient descriptors and noting that
“while 	it 	is 	possible” 	the 	unnamed 	individuals 	“could 	be 	identified
through discovery,” precedent requires “an unambiguous description of a
defendant that enables service of process” which was not provided by
these descriptors).
Because the “Doe” Defendants are insufficiently described to allow
service of process, the claims against these Defendants are subject to
dismissal without prejudice. Richardson, 598 F.3d at 736, 738 (affirming
district 	court’s 	dismissal 	without 	prejudice 	of 	claims 	against 	an
unidentified John Doe defendant).
B. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is a shotgun pleading.
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.
Case 3:26-cv-00111-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 14

4
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 identified 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 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
Case 3:26-cv-00111-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 14

5
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 three of the categories of
shotgun pleadings. First, it contains “conclusory, vague, and immaterial
facts 	not 	obviously 	connected 	to 	any 	particular 	cause 	of 	action.”
Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1325. Plaintiff alleges on December 16, 2022, she
was “involved in a physical incident” at the Santa Rosa County Jail
“involving multiple members of jail staff.” 	(Doc. 7 at 8). 	Plaintiff states
she was “approached from behind and taken to the ground” while “force
was used” causing her “physical pain and injury.” 	(Id. at 8-9). 	But
Plaintiff provides no allegations as to which individuals were involved in
this incident or how each individual specifically contributed to the use of
force. 	Plaintiff also only vaguely describes “physical pain and injury”
from this incident without any detail on what injuries occurred. 	The
same is true regarding a second incident where Plaintiff only vaguely
Case 3:26-cv-00111-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 02/23/26 Page 5 of 14

6
alleges “force . . . used against [her] by jail staff” without any detail as to
who was involved or what force was used. (Id. at 9).
After these incidents, Plaintiff was allegedly restrained in a chair,
lost control of her bladder and bowels, and touched in her genital area
“by a member of the jail staff.” 	(Id. at 10). 	Plaintiff became disoriented
while restrained and did not understand what was happening. 	(Id.).
Plaintiff claims she “was not resisting or acting violently” but “restraint
and 	force 	continued.” 	(Id.). 	Again, 	Plaintiff 	fails 	to 	identify 	the
individuals involved in this incident and how exactly each person used
force against her. 	Plaintiff later describes being pepper sprayed and
forced to take medication by medical staff, but Plaintiff does not specify
which individuals were involved in these events. (Id. at 11-12). Indeed,
it appears the only allegation specifically linked to a named Defendant is
that Defendant Gaynor threatened to take Plaintiff’s teeth if she spoke
after 	she 	was 	pepper 	sprayed. 	(Id. 	at 	12). 	Plaintiff’s 	vague 	and
conclusory allegations against numerous unidentified individuals do not
satisfy the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 	See Tamiami Partners By
& Through Tamiami Dev. Corp. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla.,
63 F.3d 1030, 1046 n.51 (11th Cir. 1995) (describing a complaint “replete
with 	vague 	and 	cursory 	allegations” 	as 	“a 	quintessential 	shotgun
Case 3:26-cv-00111-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 02/23/26 Page 6 of 14

7
pleading”); Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1294-96 (11th
Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal of shotgun pleading that “continued to fail
to provide even minimal notice to the individual Defendants as to what
conduct they are alleged to have participated in” (cleaned up).
Not only does Plaintiff fail to provide allegations specific to each
Defendant, but Plaintiff also fails to link any of her allegations to her
three counts for relief. 	(Doc. 7 at 13-14). 	Instead, Plaintiff merely lists
various alleged constitutional violations without specifying which factual
allegations and incident(s) these claims arise from. 	“Thus, a reader of
the complaint must speculate as to which factual allegations pertain to
which count.” 	Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1359
n.9 (11th Cir. 1997) (finding a shotgun pleading where the complaint
included vague factual allegations, many of which “appear to relate to
only one or two counts, or to none of the counts at all”).
The examples above are just a few of the vague and conclusory
assertions in the complaint. Neither the Court nor Defendants should be
required to “sift through the facts presented and decide for [themselves]
which [are] material to the particular cause of action asserted.” Beckwith
v. Bellsouth Telecomm. Inc., 146 F. App’x 368, 372 (11th Cir. 2005).
Case 3:26-cv-00111-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 02/23/26 Page 7 of 14

8
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 six Defendants—four named and two unnamed. (Doc. 7 at
3-5). 	As 	mentioned 	above, 	however, 	Plaintiff 	fails 	to 	specify 	each
Defendant’s alleged conduct. Plaintiff repeatedly uses generalized terms
such as “correctional officers,” “jail staff,” “staff,” and “medical staff.”
(Doc. 7 at 7-12). 	But Plaintiff fails to specify which Defendants she is
referencing or, if she is referring to all Defendants, how each Defendant
contributed to the alleged violation. 	See Kelly v. Montgomery City-Cnty.
Pers. Dep’t, No. 2:26cv19, 2026 WL 265795, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 2, 2026)
(finding a shotgun pleading) (“It is difficult, if not impossible, to discern
what alleged conduct is attributable to which Defendant. Most, if not all,
of the Kellys’ allegations make no distinction among the numerous
named Defendants, even though it is apparent that all of the defendants
could not have participated in every act complained of.” (cleaned up)).
Plaintiff similarly pleads her counts for relief against “Defendants”
rather than identifying which individual Defendant(s) each claim is
brought against and the basis for each Defendant’s liability. 	(Doc. 7 at
Case 3:26-cv-00111-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 02/23/26 Page 8 of 14

9
13-14). 	This is again an impermissible form of shotgun pleading. 	Gov’t
Emps. Ins. Co. v. Seco, No. 21-24155-CIV, 2022 WL 17987521, at *2 (S.D.
Fla. May 13, 2022) (finding a complaint bringing multiple claims “against
Defendants is a shotgun pleading because several counts assert claims
without 	specifying 	which 	defendants 	the 	claim 	is 	brought 	against”
(cleaned up)).
Plaintiff’s grouping of Defendants without identifying 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 defendants the claim is brought against.” 	Barmapov, 986 F.3d at
1325 (cleaned up). 	And Plaintiff’s “all-claims-against-all-Defendants”
pleading strategy—without specifying which Defendant(s) each count is
brought against and how each contributed to the alleged violation—does
not suffice.2 	See Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir.
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)); Swanson v. Cobb Cnty.
Dep’t of Fam. & Child. Servs., No. 1:21cv04978, 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
Case 3:26-cv-00111-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 02/23/26 Page 9 of 14

10
2001) (finding a shotgun pleading where a complaint “names fourteen
defendants” and “all defendants are charged in each count”).
Third, the 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). 	In Count 1, Plaintiff claims Defendants violated her
rights “under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments . . . by using
excessive and unnecessary force, acting with deliberate indifference to
serious 	medical 	needs, 	and 	subjecting 	Plaintiff 	to 	inhumane 	and
degrading conditions of confinement while Plaintiff was detained.”3 (Doc.
7 at 13-14). 	Count 1 appears to be asserting at least three different
claims for relief: (1) excessive force; (2) deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs; and (3) unlawful conditions of confinement. But these are
distinct claims for relief with context-specific facts and elements to be
precise conduct is attributable to each individual defendant separately in
each count.”).
3 	Plaintiff 	had 	been 	convicted 	and 	sentenced 	when 	the 	underlying
allegations occurred (Doc. 8 at 1), so her claims arise under the Eighth
Amendment. 	Hamm v. DeKalb Cnty., 774 F.2d 1567, 1572 (11th Cir.
1985) (“The eighth amendment . . . applies only to confinement that
occurs subsequent to . . . a person’s lawful conviction of a crime . . . .
Conditions of confinement imposed prior to conviction are limited instead
by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.”).
Case 3:26-cv-00111-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 02/23/26 Page 10 of 14

11
proven.4 	Thus, these claims should have been pled in separate counts.
By “lump[ing] multiple claims together in one count[,]” 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). This “is
not how litigation works.” 	Id.
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.” Vibe Micro,
878 F.3d at 1295. 	“Although a pro se litigant’s filings are construed
liberally, they must comply with procedural rules.” 	McNair v. Johnson,
4 See Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288, 1303-04 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[T]hree
distinct Eighth Amendment claims are available to plaintiff inmates
alleging 	cruel 	and 	unusual 	punishment, 	each 	of 	which 	requires 	a
different showing 	to establish a constitutional violation. The Eighth
Amendment can give rise to claims challenging specific conditions of
confinement, the excessive use of force, and the deliberate indifference to
a prisoner’s serious medical needs. Each of these claims requires a two-
prong showing: an objective showing of a deprivation or injury that is
sufficiently 	serious 	to 	constitute 	a 	denial 	of 	the 	minimal 	civilized
measure of life’s necessities and a subjective showing that the official had
a 	sufficiently 	culpable 	state 	of 	mind. 	Both 	of 	these 	inquiries 	are
contextual. Because the Eighth Amendment draws its meaning from the
evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing
society, the objective harm inquiry is contextual in that it is responsive
to contemporary standards. Additionally, what is necessary to show
sufficient harm and what is necessary to show a sufficiently culpable
state of mind varies with the type of Eighth Amendment claim at issue.”
(cleaned up and emphasis added)).
Case 3:26-cv-00111-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 02/23/26 Page 11 of 14

12
143 F.4th 1301, 1307 (11th Cir. 2025). 	And a court is not tasked with
rewriting 	a 	deficient 	pleading, 	even 	if 	brought 	by 	a 	pro 	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 10). Plaintiff, however,
has filed an amended complaint that suffers from the same type of
deficiencies as her initial complaint. Thus, dismissal is warranted.5 See
5 Plaintiff submitted two identical declarations after filing her amended
complaint. 	(Docs. 8, 9). 	These declarations do not alter the Court’s
conclusions. First, the “federal rules do not authorize litigants to submit
their pleadings in piecemeal fashion, as [Plaintiff] has done here[.]”
Aufderhaar v. Warder, 2021 WL 7448081, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2021).
Rather, 	the 	Rules 	“contemplate 	the 	use 	of 	only 	one 	complaint 	per
litigant.” 	Id. 	“Avoiding 	piecemeal 	pleading 	promotes 	clarity 	and
efficiency.” 	Kilpatrick v. Lauderdale Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 2020 WL
6937843, at *10 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 13, 2020). Thus, to the extent Plaintiff’s
declarations were intended to supplement her amended complaint, such
attempts 	are 	improper. 	Romagnano 	v. 	Childers, 	No.
3:23cv24643/MCR/HTC, 2023 WL 11692899, at *3 n.4 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 21,
2023) (“[T]o the extent these filings are supplements to the complaint,
Plaintiff cannot amend his complaint in a piecemeal fashion.”), adopted
2024 WL 2261111 (N.D. Fla. May 17, 2024); Ruiz v. Wing, 2016 WL
11665999, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 9, 2016) (refusing to allow litigant to
“supplement” his complaint and stating that “this court will not entertain
piecemeal litigation”). 	Second, even if considered, the declarations, do
Case 3:26-cv-00111-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 02/23/26 Page 12 of 14

13
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 [her] complaint.”).
II. Conclusion
For the reasons above, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s 	amended 	complaint 	(Doc. 	7) 	be 	DISMISSED
without prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading.6
not clarify the amended complaint. Many allegations in the declarations
simply repeat those already in the amended complaint. A few allegations
are made against specific Defendants—e.g., “Officer Taylor . . . mock[ed]
me and . . . [tased me]”; “Officer Harwell yelled at me” and “stared at me
in a sexualized manner.” 	(Doc. 8 at 2, 3). 	But most continue to vaguely
describe conduct by “multiple officers,” “fifteen officers,” “a security
officer,” and “a nurse” without identifying who these individuals are or
their specific conduct. 	(Id. at 2-4). 	Accordingly, this action should still
be 	dismissed without 	prejudice for impermissible 	shotgun 	pleading.
Because the Court recommends dismissal without prejudice, Plaintiff can
re-file her allegations and claims against all identified Defendants in a
single and procedurally proper complaint in a new case.
6 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.”). The conduct underlying
Plaintiff’s claims began on December 16, 2022. 	(Doc. 7 at 7). 	Thus, the
claims do not appear time-barred so long as she timely re-files before the
Case 3:26-cv-00111-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 02/23/26 Page 13 of 14

14
2. 	The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 23rd day of February 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.
statute of limitations expires. 	Doe v. Swearingen, 51 F.4th 1295, 1302-
03 (11th Cir. 2022) (“In Florida . . . [a § 1983] action must be commenced
within four years.”).
Case 3:26-cv-00111-MCR-ZCB Document 10 Filed 02/23/26 Page 14 of 14