Sherman v. Blair et al
Filing
4
ORDER striking 1 Complaint. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this Order on or before February 9, 2015. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 1/26/2015. (MHM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
ROY SHERMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 5:15-cv-36-Oc-34PRL
CHRIS BLAIR, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Marion County, Florida; Deputy
FRANCO PORCELLI; and Deputy PAXTON
SAPP
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff initiated the instant action on
January 22, 2015, by filing an eleven-count Complaint (Doc. 1).1 Upon review, the Court
finds that the Complaint constitutes an impermissible “shotgun pleading.” A shotgun
complaint “contains several counts, each one incorporating by reference the allegations of
its predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the counts . . . contain irrelevant
factual allegations and legal conclusions.” Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds
& Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002). Consequently, in ruling on the
sufficiency of a claim, the Court is faced with the onerous task of sifting out irrelevancies in
order to decide for itself which facts are relevant to a particular cause of action asserted.
1
The Court notes that the Complaint contains two counts numbered “Count IX” and then skips to “Count
XI.” See Complaint at 25-26, 28. As such, it appears that Plaintiff misnumbered Count X. Because the Court
will direct Plaintiff to file an amended complaint for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff should also correct this
error in the amended complaint.
See id. Here, each subsequent count of the eleven counts in the Complaint incorporates by
reference all allegations of each of the preceding counts. See Complaint at 12-28.
In the Eleventh Circuit, shotgun pleadings of this sort are “altogether unacceptable.”
Cramer v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Cook v. Randolph
County, 573 F.3d 1143, 1151 (11th Cir. 2009) (“We have had much to say about shotgun
pleadings, none of which is favorable.”) (collecting cases).
As the Court in Cramer
recognized, “[s]hotgun pleadings, whether filed by plaintiff or defendant, exact an intolerable
toll on the trial court’s docket, lead to unnecessary and unchanneled discovery, and impose
unwarranted expense on the litigants, the court and the court’s parajudicial personnel and
resources.” Cramer, 117 F.3d at 1263. When faced with the burden of deciphering a
shotgun pleading, it is the trial court’s obligation to strike the pleading on its own initiative,
and force the plaintiff to replead to the extent possible under Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See id. (admonishing district court for not striking shotgun complaint on its own
initiative); see also United States ex rel. Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 1350, 1354 n.6 (11th
Cir. 2006) (“When faced with a shotgun pleading, the trial court, whether or not requested
to do so by a party’s adversary, ought to require the party to file a repleader.”) (citing Byrne
v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1133 (11th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds as recognized
by Douglas Asphalt Co. v. QORE, Inc., 657 F.3d 1146, 1151 (11th Cir. 2011)).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.
The Complaint (Doc. 1) is STRICKEN.
2
2.
Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with the directives of this
Order on or before February 9, 2015. Failure to do so may result in a dismissal of this
action.
3.
Defendants shall respond to the amended complaint in accordance with the
requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, this 26th day of January, 2015.
lc11
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?