Prawl v. City of Clearwater et al

Filing 5

ORDER: Plaintiff Dalton Prawl's Complaint (Doc. # 1 ) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Prawl may file an amended complaint by September 20, 2017. If he elects to file an amended complaint, Prawl must comply with the pleading requirements as outlined in this Order. Failure to file an amended complaint by September 20, 2017, will result in dismissal and closure of this case without further notice. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/18/2017. (DMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DALTON M. PRAWL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:17-cv-1952-T-33TGW

CITY OF CLEARWATER, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On August
16, 2017, Dalton M. Prawl, who is proceeding pro se, filed
his Complaint in this Court. (Doc. # 1). For the reasons that
follow, the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and with
leave to amend. If Prawl wishes to proceed with this action,
he should file an amended complaint by September 20, 2017.
Discussion
The handwritten Complaint is a rambling mass of almost
indecipherable allegations of misconduct by Defendants City
of Clearwater, the Clearwater Police Department, and the
Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. (Doc. # 1). Specifically,
the Complaint, which is a filled-in form provided by the
Clerk’s Office with additional pages of allegations attached,
lists

the

First,

Fourth,

Thirteenth,
1

and

Fourteenth

Amendments, as well as 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 245, and 42
U.S.C. § 14141, as the basis for Prawl’s claims. (Id. at 3).
Although

Prawl

frequently

asserts

that

Defendants

“terrorized” and “intimidated” him and his family over a
period of three years, the facts surrounding this harassment
are unclear. For example, Prawl flatly states that his rights
were

violated
[his]

“searched
“religious

because
home

liberty

Defendants,
without
through

a

among

other

warrant,”

daily

things,

denied

intimidation

him
and

segregation,” and “den[ied] [his] boys a place back into [an]
after school program.” (Id. at 5-7). But Prawl does not always
identify which Defendant was responsible for which acts,
beyond vaguely alleging that all Defendants have conspired
against him. And Prawl does not separate his allegations of
different

types

of

misconduct

into

separate

counts,

nor

provide further details or dates for these instances of
misconduct.
Given the number of claims and defendants, the Court
advises Prawl 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
2

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

Eleventh

Circuit.

There

are

four

types

of

shotgun

pleadings: (1) “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”; (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
3

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.
Because Prawl’s Complaint fails to comply with these
pleading requirements, the Court dismisses the Complaint. But
the Court grants Prawl leave to file an amended complaint
that complies with the pleading requirements by September 20,
2017. If Prawl decides to file an amended complaint, he 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.
Prawl is also highly encouraged, though not required, to
seek aid through the 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. This legal assistance
program is 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.
4

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Plaintiff

Dalton

Prawl’s

Complaint

(Doc.

#

1)

is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
(2)

Prawl may file an amended complaint by September 20,
2017. If he elects to file an amended complaint, Prawl
must comply with the pleading requirements as outlined
in this Order.

(3)

Failure to file an amended complaint by September 20,
2017, will result in dismissal and closure of this case
without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

18th day of August, 2017.

5