Doe v. Rollins College et al

Filing 7

ORDER -- Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On or before January 20, 2016, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 1/4/2017. (VMF)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION JOHN DOE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 6:16-cv-2232-Orl-37KRS ROLLINS COLLEGE; JESSICA NARDUCCI; ORIANA JIMINEZ; KEN MILLER; REBECCA DECESARE; and MEGHAN HARTE WEYANT, Defendant. ORDER This cause is before the Court on its own initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1), filed December 28, 2016. Upon review, the Court finds that the Complaint is due to be dismissed as an impermissible shotgun pleading. LEGAL STANDARDS 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, LLC v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002). The Court is therefore faced with the onerous task of sifting out irrelevancies in order to determine which facts are relevant to which causes of action. See id. Such shotgun pleadings are “altogether unacceptable,” and it is the Court’s obligation to force Plaintiff to replead. Cramer v. Florida, 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997). DISCUSSION Here, John Doe has named six Defendants—Rollins College (“Rollins”), Jessica Narducci (“JN”), Oriana Jiminez (“OJ”), Ken Miller (“KM”), Rebecca Decesare (“RD”), and Meghan Harte Weyant (“MW”)—in its seven count Complaint; however, he did not specify which Defendant is named in which of the seven counts. (See Doc. 1.) Further, each count improperly “repeats and realleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth herein.” (See id. ¶¶ 109, 125, 138, 144, 148, 158, 165.) In the context of Plaintiff’s 46-page Complaint, this shotgun style of pleading simply cannot be tolerated. Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to replead, and if he chooses to do so, he must clearly delineate which factual allegations are relevant to each claim and which defendants are named in each count. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. On or before January 20, 2016, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that complies in all respects with this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court’s Local Rules. 3. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint in the time prescribed, this action may be dismissed without further notice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on January 4, 2017. 2 Copies: 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?