Tavvafi et al v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing without prejudice #1 Complaint. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before January 21, 2022. Signed by Judge Wendy W. Berger on 1/7/2022. (MDJ)

Case 6:22-cv-00022-WWB-LRH Document 6 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 198

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
RAMIN TAVVAFI, MOJGAN
ASOUDEHKHAH and D.T.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 6:22-cv-22-WWB-LRH

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, USCIS/DHS, US
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, UR
JADDOU, SHONNIE LYON, MERRICK
B. GARLAND and CHRISTOPHER
WRAY,
Defendants.

/
ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on sua sponte review of the Complaint (Doc. 1).
The Complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading. As a general matter, “[t]he failure
to identify claims with sufficient clarity to enable the defendant to frame a responsive
pleading constitutes a ‘shotgun pleading.’” Beckwith v. BellSouth Telecomms. Inc., 146
F. App’x 368, 371 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citing Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075,
1029–30 (11th Cir. 2001)). “Shotgun pleadings wreak havoc on the judicial system” and
“divert already stretched judicial resources into disputes that are not structurally prepared
to use those resources efficiently.” Wagner v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273,
1279 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). As such, “[w]hen presented with a shotgun
complaint, the district court should order repleading sua sponte.” Ferrell v. Durbin, 311 F.
App’x 253, 259 n.8 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); see also Johnson Enters. of

Case 6:22-cv-00022-WWB-LRH Document 6 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 199

Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Grp., Inc., 162 F.3d 1290, 1333 (11th Cir. 1998) (noting that
shotgun pleadings drain judicial resources, and the district should act sua sponte to define
the issues at the earliest possible stage).
The Eleventh Circuit has defined four types of shotgun pleadings. “The most
common type—by a long shot—is 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.”
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015). The
second most common type “is a complaint that . . . is guilty of the venial sin of being
replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any
particular cause of action.” Id. at 1322. “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.” Id. at 1322–23. “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 1323.
At the least, Plaintiff’s Complaint falls into the first category. Each count of the
Complaint reincorporates by reference every allegation of the entire pleading. (Doc. 1,
¶¶ 77, 91, 104, 117). This circumstance alone makes it virtually impossible to discern
which of the many facts alleged supports each claim and is sufficient grounds upon which
to order Plaintiff to replead. Therefore, the Complaint will be dismissed as a shotgun
pleading.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

2

Case 6:22-cv-00022-WWB-LRH Document 6 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 200

1. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before January 21, 2022, to
correct the deficiencies noted herein. Failure to timely file an amended
pleading in compliance with this Order may result in dismissal without
further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 7, 2022.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

3