Prosperous v. Todd et al

Filing 36

ORDER: Plaintiff Alexandra Love Prosperous' Complaint (Doc. # 1 ) is DISMISEED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff Alexandra Love Prosperous may file an amended complaint by June 3, 2017. If she elects to file an amended complaint, Prosperous must comply with the pleading requirements as outlined in this Order. Failure to file an amended complaint by June 3, 2017, will result in dismissal of this action without further notice. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/3/2017. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ALEXANDRA LOVE PROSPEROUS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:17-cv-996-T-33MAP

KIMBERLY TODD, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On April
28,

2017,

Plaintiff

Alexandra

Love

Prosperous,

who

is

proceeding pro se, instituted this action against thirtythree defendants. (Doc. # 1). For the reasons below, the
Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to
amend. If Prosperous wishes to proceed with this action, she
should filed an amended complaint by June 3, 2017.
Discussion
To begin, the Complaint filed by Prosperous consists of
a filled-in form provided by the Clerk’s Office and an
attachment that provides more detail with respect to the
factual allegations giving rise to the Complaint. (Doc. # 1).
While a plaintiff may attach documents to a complaint, for
example a public record or contract that is relevant to an

action, the complaint itself should be comprised of a single
document. Thus, if Prosperous files an amended complaint, she
should draft it as a single document.
Furthermore,

given

the

multitude

of

claims

and

defendants, the Court advises Prosperous of the pleading
requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Eleventh Circuit precedent. A complaint must contain “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the [plaintiff]
is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In addition,
“[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(d). And, “[a] party must state its claims . . .
in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to
a single set of circumstances. . . . If doing so would promote
clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or
occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count . . . .”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “These rules work together to require
the

[plaintiff]

to

present

[her]

claims

discretely

and

succinctly, so that [her] adversar[ies] can discern what
[she] is claiming and frame a responsive pleading.” Fikes v.
City of Daphne, 79 F.3d 1079, 1082 (11th Cir. 1996).
Relatedly, shotgun pleadings are not permitted within
the

Eleventh

Circuit.

There

are

four

types

of

shotgun

pleadings: (1) “a complaint containing multiple counts where

2 

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”; (2) a complaint . . . replete with conclusory,
vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any
particular cause of action”; (3) a “pleading . . . that [does]
. . . not separat[e] into a different count each cause of
action or claim for relief”; and (4) a complaint . . .
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.”

Weiland

v.

Palm

Beach

Cty.

Sheriff’s

Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2015). Each “type[]
of shotgun pleading[] . . . fail[s] . . . to give the
defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the
grounds upon which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323.
If Prosperous elects to file an amended complaint, she
should list each claim to relief, along with the facts
supporting that particular claim, under a separate count.
Additionally, if Prosperous asserts the same claim against
multiple defendants under a single count, she should ensure
it is clear which defendant is alleged to have done which
act.

3 

Moreover, although Prosperous attempts to assert claims
under

the

first

Constitution,

ten

many

of

Amendments
those

to

the

Amendments

United
are

States

simply

not

implicated by the alleged conduct. For instance, Prosperous
includes no allegations as to how the Second (right to bear
arms), Third (no quartering of soldiers), Seventh (right to
trial by jury in suits at common law), Ninth (preserving
rights not enumerated), and Tenth (powers reserved to the
states or the people) Amendments have been violated. If
Prosperous files an amended complaint, she should only list
the Amendments that are implicated by the facts she alleges.
The Court also notes it does not sit in an appellate
capacity over state-court proceedings. See Harper v. Chase
Manhattan Bank, 138 F. App’x 130 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Under the
Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine, it is well-settled that
a

federal

reverse,

or

district

court

invalidate

a

lacks
final

jurisdiction
state

court

to

review,

decision.”);

Sitton v. United States, 413 F.2d 1386, 1389 (5th Cir. 1969)
(“The jurisdiction possessed by the District Courts of the
United States is strictly original. A federal district court
has no original jurisdiction to reverse or modify the judgment
of a state court. Federal courts have no authority to act as
an appellate arm of the state courts.”). Additionally, in

4 

considering if and how to amend her complaint, Prosperous is
encouraged to consider the effect judicial immunity, quasijudicial immunity, and qualified immunity may have on this
action.
Plaintiff

should

review

the

“Proceeding

Without

a

Lawyer” section of the court’s website. Of particular note is
the Handbook designed to help guide pro se litigants. Also,
there is a legal assistance program on Tuesdays from 11:00
a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on the second floor of the Sam A. Gibbons
United States Courthouse where pro se litigants may consult
with a lawyer on a limited basis for free. A description of
this program may be found on the court’s website under the
“Proceeding Without a Lawyer” section.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Plaintiff Alexandra Love Prosperous’ Complaint (Doc. #
1) is DISMISEED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

(2)

Plaintiff Alexandra Love Prosperous may file an amended
complaint by June 3, 2017. If she elects to file an
amended

complaint,

Prosperous

must

comply

with

pleading requirements as outlined in this Order.

5 

the

(3)

Failure to file an amended complaint by June 3, 2017,
will result in dismissal of this action without further
notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 3rd

day of May, 2017.

6