Cottam v. City of Wildwood et al

Filing 69

ORDER: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 65 is GRANTED. The Amended Complaint 59 is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff John Cottam may file an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order's entry. Failure to file an amended complaint within the fourteen (14) days will result in this case being closed without further notice. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 11/30/2016. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION

JOHN COTTAM,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:16-cv-413-Oc-30PRL

CITY OF WILDWOOD, EDDIE
REESER, PAUL VALENTINO and
DOUGLAS PELTON,
Defendants.

ORDER
Doctor John Cottam sued the City of Wildwood, Police Chief E.W. Reeser, Officer
Paul Valentino, and Officer Douglas Pelton claiming Pelton falsely arrested him. Plaintiff
also claims Defendants subsequently conspired and committed various unlawful acts. After
the Court dismissed (Doc. 56) the complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
(Doc. 59) that Defendants now move to dismiss (Doc. 65). The Court must dismiss the
amended complaint because it is a proscribed shotgun pleading.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court must hold the pro se pleading to a less
stringent standard and must construe the complaint liberally. Tannenbaum v. United States,
148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”

(citation omitted)). Although courts afford liberal construction to pro se litigants’
pleadings, litigants appearing pro se must adhere to the procedural requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the Local Rules for the Middle District of
Florida. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“[W]e have never suggested
that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse
mistakes by those who proceed without counsel.”).
The amended complaint must be dismissed because it is still plagued by the
deficiencies the Court discussed in its prior order. Plaintiff again filed a shotgun pleading,
incorporating all prior counts into successive counts, listing all Defendants in each count,
and failing to parse out the facts for which Plaintiff alleges each Defendant is responsible.
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015); see
also Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1130 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[S]hotgun pleadings wreak
havoc on the judicial system.”). If Plaintiff files a second amended complaint without
correcting these defects, his case could be dismissed with prejudice—meaning he could
forever lose the right to seek redress for Defendants’ allegedly unlawful actions. 1
While this defect alone warrants dismissal, the Court would be remiss not to address
five other defects that Plaintiff must correct in a subsequent pleading. First, Plaintiff has
two “Count X”s (fraud and racketeering). Second, there is no such thing as holding some
defendants liable directly and others as proximate cause, which Plaintiff attempted to do in

1

Contrary to Plaintiff’s opinion, a dismissal with prejudice for failure to file a proper
pleading would not be “abusive.” Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001).

2

every count except Count XIII. Third, Plaintiff cannot reallege claims that were previously
dismissed with prejudice against the same defendants, as he did with Counts II and IV
against the City of Wildwood. Fourth, Plaintiff must clearly state under what law (e.g.
federal or Florida, statute or common law) he is bringing claims because, from a legal
standpoint, those distinctions matter. Fifth and finally, this is not a criminal prosecution of
Defendants, and Plaintiff cannot bring claims based on violation of criminal statutes
without some legal authority.
That said, the Court in no way expresses an opinion about the validity of Plaintiff’s
claims. Accepting his allegations (many of which are missing from the amended complaint
but are fleshed out in Plaintiff’s response) as true, Plaintiff may be entitled to relief. But
before a jury is permitted to decide that, Plaintiff must present his claims properly so
Defendants are given fair notice and can properly respond. 2
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 65) is GRANTED.

2.

The Amended Complaint (Doc. 59) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3.

Plaintiff John Cottam may file an amended complaint within fourteen (14)
days of this Order’s entry. Failure to file an amended complaint within the
fourteen (14) days will result in this case being closed without further notice.

2

Given the complex nature of this area of law, it may behoove Plaintiff to retain a lawyer
skilled at presenting such claims. This suggestion is in no way a slight against Plaintiff, and he is
certainly welcome to disregard it. But, just as Plaintiff might scoff at even the brightest lawyer
trying to make a medical diagnosis without proper training, Plaintiff should consider if a skilled
lawyer might be better suited at pleading his case.

3

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 30th day of November, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record

4