Pollari v. Bowman et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 12/21/2017. (hmo) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO: 17-62507-CIV-GAYLES
ROBERT POLLARI,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN B. BOWMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on a sua sponte review. Because the Court finds that
Plaintiff’s pleading, titled “Claim Upon Constitutional Due Process Violation” [ECF No. 1], fails to
meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the action is
dismissed without prejudice and the case is administratively closed.
Rule 8(a) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The Eleventh Circuit has “identified multiple types of
‘shotgun pleadings’ insufficient to satisfy Rule 8.” Westley v. Alberto, No. 16-10666, 2017 WL
2963436, *4 (11th Cir. 2017). “One kind of shotgun pleading is ‘replete with conclusory, vague, and
immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action,’” while “[a]nother type
alleges ‘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. (quoting Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1322–23 (11th Cir. 2015)).
In this case, Plaintiff names as defendants Judge John B. Bowman of the 17th Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County, Florida, and John and Jane Does 1 through 10. The pleading gives
1

almost no factual narrative at all, except that it alleges that the state court judge improperly dismissed
a state court action. The first two counts—titled “Failure to Act Honorably” and “Dereliction Of
Duty, Failure To Uphold The Oath Of Office and Conduct Demonstrating Bad Behavior”—are vague
and do not plead any actionable claim whatsoever. Count 3 appears to assert a due process claim but
it is unclear against whom the claim is brought and the claim is likewise replete with conclusory
allegations.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
and CLOSED for administrative purposes. If Plaintiff files an amended pleading remedying the
deficiencies described above, the Court will reopen the case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 21st day of December, 2017.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2