The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GEORGE DOUGLAS METZ, II,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 2:20-cv-709-FtM-
38NPM
RANDALL STERLING and
CHARLOTTE COUNTY
GOVERNMENT,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is Defendant Randall Sterling’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint and Jury Demand filed on September 21, 2020. (Doc. 9).
Plaintiff George Douglas Metz, II (“Metz”) responded in opposition on October 5,
2020. (Doc. 13). For the following reasons, the Court finds the Complaint is due
to be dismissed.
This is a federal civil rights action. Metz alleges Defendants2 violated his
constitutional rights by prohibiting him from video recording the inside of a Driver
Motor Vehicle building and issuing him a trespass warning. Defendant Randall
1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the
Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products
they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s
availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order.
2 Notably, it is unclear from Plaintiff’s allegations whether he intends to sue the County or the Charlotte
County Sherriff. Plaintiff must make this clear on the next iteration of the Complaint.
Sterling moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 9). However, because
the Complaint constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading, the Court must
intervene sua sponte and order repleader. See Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075,
1133 (11th Cir. 2001) (abrogated on other grounds).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 set the minimum requirements for
pleadings. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2). And Rule 10(b) says “[a] party must state its claims . . . in numbered
paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 10(b). Problems arise when a plaintiff does not follow these rules. And
a shotgun pleading is such a problem.
There are four impermissible shotgun pleadings, three of which are at issue
here. The first type is when “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.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty.
Sherriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015) (footnote omitted). The next
shotgun pleading is “one that commits the sin of not separating into a different
count each cause of action or claim for relief.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty.
Sherriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1322. And the final shotgun pleading “assert[s]
claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants are
responsible for which acts or omissions.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sherriff’s
Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1323.
“Courts in the Eleventh Circuit have little tolerance for shotgun pleadings.”
Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018) (citations
omitted). They “waste scarce judicial resources, inexorably broaden[ ] the scope of
discovery, wreak havoc on appellate court dockets, and undermine[ ] the public’s
respect for the courts.” Id. (internal quotes and citation omitted). And they fail “to
give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds
upon which each claim rests.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323 (footnote omitted).
While pro se litigant pleadings are held “to a less stringent standard than pleadings
drafted by attorneys[,]” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th
Cir. 1998), courts are under no duty to “rewrite” a pro se litigant’s complaint to
find a claim. See Washington v. Dep't of Children and Families, 256 F. App’x. 326,
327 (11th Cir. 2007). (citation omitted). A pro se litigant must
still follow the procedural rules. See Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
The Complaint is a textbook shotgun pleading. First, Plaintiff does not
clearly separate each cause of action into a separate count for relief. As best the
Court can tell, Plaintiff brings claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Yet these claims are blended under one subheading and it is hard to determine
which facts support which claims for relief. Next, Plaintiff’s Complaint has a
pattern of incorporating all the preceding allegations into each separate
subheading. And the Complaint mixes claims against the two Defendants without
specifying which Defendant is responsible for which acts or omissions under each
count. Thus, Defendants (and the Court) cannot understand the allegations and
claims. Plaintiff must replead his claims and cure these deficiencies.*
As a final matter, the Court directs Plaintiff to the service rules under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Upon filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff must
properly serve the named Defendants within fourteen (14) days and file proof of
service with the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l) and (m).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Defendant Randall Sterling’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint and Jury Demand (Doc. 9) GRANTED to the limited
extent the Complaint is a shotgun pleading.
2. The Complaint is DISMISSED (Doc. 1) without prejudice.
Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint consistent with this Order
on or before October 20, 2020. Failure to do so will result
in the closure of this case without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 6, 2020.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
3 The Complaint also includes legal argument, such as a discussion on qualified immunity. Because this
is improper, Plaintiff must eliminate any argument from his next pleading. See Antoine v. Sch. Bd. of Collier
Cy, Fe. No. 2:16-CV-379-FTM-38MRM, 2019 WL 913358, at “1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2019) (citation