Omar v. Hillsborough County Public School District et al
Filing
6
ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. 2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this Order, which must correct t he deficiencies discussed herein. 3. Failure to file an amended complaint within the time provided will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. Signed by Senior Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 10/23/2024. (AB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
KHALILAH OMAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 8:24-cv-2427-CEH-SPF
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOL DISTRICT, KELLI RUSSO,
BRENDA FREEBOURN, and BRIAN
SPIRO,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of the file. On October 21, 2024,
Plaintiff Khalilah Omar, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Kamilyah Nasiya Omar-Jones, Deceased, initiated this action against Defendants
Hillsborough County Public School District (a/k/a Riverview High School), Kelli
Russo, Brenda Freebourn, LPN, and Brian Spiro. Doc. 1. In the six-count Complaint,
Plaintiff sues Defendants under federal and state law, bringing numerous claims
stemming from the death of her daughter Kamilyah Omar-Jones, who suffered from
cerebral palsy and died after choking on her lunch at school. Id. ¶¶ 16–40. Plaintiff
alleges that her daughter’s death was caused by Defendants’ negligence, wrongful
conduct, and lack of supervision. Id. ¶ 38. Because Plaintiff’s Complaint is a shotgun
pleading, it is due to be dismissed, and Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to amend.
DISCUSSION
“A complaint that fails to articulate claims with sufficient clarity to allow the
defendant to frame a responsive pleading constitutes a ‘shotgun pleading.’” LampkinAsam v. Volusia Cnty. Sch. Bd., 261 F. App’x 274, 277 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation
omitted). The Eleventh Circuit has identified four general types of shotgun pleadings.
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015).
Relevant here, a complaint that contains “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” constitutes
a shotgun pleading. Id. at 1321. The second type of shotgun pleading is one that is
“replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any
particular cause of action.” Id. at 1322. The third type is one that fails to separate into
a different count each cause of action or claim for relief. Id. at 1322–23. Finally, the
fourth type of shotgun pleading is one that asserts multiple claims against multiple
defendants without specifying which defendant is responsible for which act or
omission. Id. at 1323.
“The unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun pleadings is that they fail to
one degree or another, and in one way or another, to give the defendants adequate
notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Id.
When faced with a shotgun pleading, a court should strike the complaint and instruct
plaintiff to file a more definite statement. See Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516
2
F.3d 955, 984 (11th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). The Eleventh Circuit repeatedly condemns the
use of shotgun pleadings for “imped[ing] the administration of the district courts’ civil
dockets.” PVC Windows, Inc. v. Babbitbay Beach Constr., N.V., 598 F.3d 802, 806 n.4
(11th Cir. 2010). Shotgun pleadings require the district court to sift through allegations
in an attempt to separate the meritorious claims from the unmeritorious, resulting in a
“massive waste of judicial and private resources.” Id. (citation omitted). Thus, the
Eleventh Circuit has established that a shotgun pleading is an unacceptable form of
establishing a claim for relief.
The Complaint here constitutes a classic shotgun pleading. Each of Plaintiff’s
claims incorporates the preceding paragraphs, including prior counts, resulting in the
final count constituting a culmination of all four claims. This form of pleading is
exactly the type repeatedly condemned by the Eleventh Circuit.
Because the Complaint is a shotgun pleading, the Court will dismiss it and grant
Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint which conforms with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida. In filing an
amended complaint, Plaintiff shall ensure that she avoids shotgun pleading pitfalls and
complies with applicable pleading requirements, including Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8 and 10.
3
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as a
shotgun pleading.
2. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS from the date of this Order, which must correct the deficiencies discussed
herein.
3. Failure to file an amended complaint within the time provided will result in
the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on October 23, 2024.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
4
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?