Boe v. Garcia et al

Filing 10

ORDER Adopting 9 Report and Recommendations. Closing Case. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/30/2024. See attached document for full details. (sdu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 4:24-cv-10057-KMM
BENJAMIN BOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER JULIAN GARCIA, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Compl.”) (ECF
No. 1), Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3), Motion for Leave to Proceed
Under Pseudonym (ECF No. 4), Motion for Referral to Volunteer Attorney Program (ECF No. 5),
and Motion for Update (ECF No. 8). The Court referred the matter to the Honorable Marty
Fulgueira Elfenbein, United States Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the Complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and all pending
motions be DENIED AS MOOT. (“R&R”) (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff did not file objections to the
R&R and the time to do so has passed. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.
This action stems from Plaintiff’s Complaint, wherein Plaintiff sues seven Defendants: (1)
Officer Julian Garcia of the Islamorada Police Department; (2) Deputy Wardell Hanna of the
Monroe County Sheriff’s Office; (3) Sergeant Edward Askins of the Islamorada Police
Department; (4) Brittany Brown, Records Supervisor of the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office; (5)
an Unknown FOIA Officer/Records Clerk with the Islamorada Police Department; (6) the Village
of Islamorada; and (7) the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office. See generally Compl. Plaintiff alleges
that he recorded an interaction where Defendant Garcia falsely detained him and a companion for

running a stop sign. R&R at 3. What followed was a lengthy saga involving alleged false
imprisonment, misconduct from police officers, and coverups of the alleged misconduct—events
that were thoroughly summarized by Magistrate Judge Elfenbein in the R&R. See id. at 2–6.
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge Elfenbein finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is one long
narrative spanning three pages and several time periods. See R&R at 11. The Complaint is neither
numbered nor limited to a single set of circumstances, weaving together details about a traffic stop,
a later FOIA request, the alleged motivations of individual Defendants, alleged policies of
institutional Defendants, and Plaintiff’s alleged resultant injuries. Id. at 12. Thus, the Complaint
is a shotgun pleading because it (1) fails to separate into a different count each cause of action or
claim for relief; and (2) asserts multiple claims against multiple Defendants without specifying
which Defendant each claim is brought against. Id. Magistrate Judge Elfenbein recommends that
the Complaint should be dismissed and all other motions should be denied as moot. Id. at 13. This
Court agrees.
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Complaint, the R&R, the pertinent
portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED
AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Magistrate Judge Elfenbein’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) is ADOPTED;
2. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
3. Plaintiff may amend the Complaint to address the aforementioned deficiencies on or before
September 20, 2024;
4. All other motions are DENIED AS MOOT;

2

5. The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to CLOSE this case.
30th
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ______
day of August, 2024.

K. MICHAEL MOORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record

3