Harold Jean-Baptiste v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12949
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
HAROLD JEAN-BAPTISTE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-23181-RNS
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12949 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 1 of 7

-- 1 of 7 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-12949
Before JILL PRYOR , N EWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Harold Jean-Baptiste, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint without
prejudice as a shotgun pleading and directing him to file an
amended complaint. After review, we affirm.
I. Background
Jean-Baptiste filed a pro se complaint against Publix
Supermarkets, Inc., alleging that he was bringing the complaint
under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986; 21 U.S.C. §§ 342(a), 343,
350g, 246, and “lack care of duty, Ninth Amendment, negligence,
[and] cruel and human rights violations.” In his complaint, he
alleged that he went to the Miami University Hospital on June 30,
2023, due to an unexplained spike in his blood pressure after
drinking from a Smartwater bottle that he purchased from a Publix
Supermarket in Miami, Florida. He was admitted to the hospital,
and claimed that a special agent with the FBI at the hospital told
hospital staff “not [to] inform[] [Jean-Baptiste] of the toxic
substance in his system.” He maintained that the FBI agent’s
presence and actions at the hospital “implie[d] complicity” and
demonstrated that the FBI was targeting him with Publix’s help
and tampered with the last two water bottles on the shelf, which
Jean-Baptiste purchased. He asserted that the FBI was targeting
him because of past lawsuits he had filed against the FBI.
USCA11 Case: 23-12949 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 2 of 7

-- 2 of 7 --

23-12949 Opinion of the Court 3
In a section labeled “Violations of Laws,” Jean-Baptiste
alleged in a conclusory manner that Publix violated his civil rights,
human rights, was negligent, willfully ran a store with
contaminated food, willfully mislabeled food, failed to evaluate the
hazards of the food in its store, failed to prevent illegal activity, and
treated him unfairly based on his race, color, and national origin,
constituting harassment and retaliation. He requested declaratory
relief and compensatory and punitive damages.
The district court sua sponte struck the complaint as an
impermissible shotgun pleading and directed Jean-Baptiste to file
an amended complaint. The district court explained the
deficiencies in the complaint and what Jean-Baptiste needed to do
to fix them.1 However, rather than file an amended complaint,
Jean-Baptiste filed a notice of appeal.
II. Discussion
Although Jean-Baptiste does not expressly address the
dismissal of the complaint on shotgun pleading grounds, he argues
generally that the district court misapplied the law and erred in
dismissing his complaint, and that the dismissal denied him his
1 Minutes before the district court issued the dismissal order, Jean-Baptiste filed
an amended complaint that was identical to the original. The district court
issued a paperless order striking this complaint, noting that it was filed minutes
before the court issued the dismissal order on shotgun pleading grounds, and
again directed Jean-Baptiste to correct the identified deficiencies and file an
amended complaint.
USCA11 Case: 23-12949 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 3 of 7

-- 3 of 7 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-12949
opportunity to present his case to the courts. We disagree for the
reasons set forth below.
“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally
construed.” Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003)
(quotations omitted). “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) (quotations omitted). We review the district
court’s dismissal for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1294.
“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). Rule 8
requires that the complaint set forth “a short and plain statement
of the claim” demonstrating an entitlement to relief, and Rule 10
requires that a plaintiff “state [his] claims . . . in numbered
paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of
circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and 10(b). Rule 10 further
provides that each claim be stated in separate counts “[i]f doing so
would promote clarity.” Id. R. 10(b). As we have previously
explained, there are approximately four types of shotgun pleadings.
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir.
2015).
The most common type—by a long shot—is a
complaint containing multiple counts where each
USCA11 Case: 23-12949 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 4 of 7

-- 4 of 7 --

23-12949 Opinion of the Court 5
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. The next most common type, at
least as far as our published opinions on the subject
reflect, is a complaint that does not commit the
mortal sin of re-alleging all preceding counts but is
guilty of the venial sin of being replete with
conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously
connected to any particular cause of action. The
third type of shotgun pleading is one that commits
the sin of not separating into a different count each
cause of action or claim for relief. Fourth, and finally,
there is the relatively rare sin of asserting 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.
Id. at 1321–23 (footnotes omitted).
We have repeatedly condemned the use of shotgun
pleadings. See Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324; Magluta v. Samples, 256
F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). And we have explained that where
a party files a shotgun pleading, “the district court should strike the
pleading and instruct [the party] to replead the case . . . even when
the other party does not move to strike the pleading.” Jackson v.
Bank of Am., 898 F.3d 1348, 1357–58 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotations
omitted); see also Woldeab v. DeKalb Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 1289,
1291–92 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining that generally, where a more
USCA11 Case: 23-12949 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 5 of 7

-- 5 of 7 --

6 Opinion of the Court 23-12949
carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, the district court
abuses its discretion if it does not provide a pro se plaintiff at least
one opportunity to amend before the court dismisses with
prejudice). In dismissing the improper shotgun pleading, the
district court should explain how the pleading violated the shotgun
rule so that the plaintiff can remedy those issues in his next
pleading. Vibe Micro, 878 F.3d at 1296.
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing the complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading
and directing Jean-Baptiste to file an amended complaint. The
complaint was a shotgun pleading because it contained conclusory,
vague, and immaterial facts that were not obviously connected to
a particular count. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321–23 (explaining that
one type of shotgun pleading is one that is “replete with
conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected
to any particular cause of action”). The complaint also improperly
listed, within a single paragraph, numerous causes of action in
violation of Rules 8 and 10. Therefore, the district court properly
dismissed the complaint without prejudice, identified the
deficiencies and explained how to correct them, and provided Jean-
Baptiste an opportunity to amend as required. See Jackson, 898 F.3d
at 1357–58; Vibe Micro, 878 F.3d at 1296.
Jean-Baptiste chose to appeal instead of amend the
complaint, thereby waiving his right to amend. See Schurrman v.
Motor Vessel Betty K V, 798 F.2d 442, 445 (11th Cir. 1986) (“Once the
plaintiff chooses to appeal before the expiration of time allowed for
USCA11 Case: 23-12949 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 6 of 7

-- 6 of 7 --

23-12949 Opinion of the Court 7
amendment, however, the plaintiff waives the right to later amend
the complaint, even if the time to amend has not yet expired.”); see
also Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1244
n.1 (11th Cir. 2005) (same). Accordingly, the district court did not
abuse its discretion, and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 23-12949 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/06/2024 Page: 7 of 7

-- 7 of 7 --