The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
BOBBY SHED,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 8:22-cv-1327-KKM-TGW
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________
ORDER
On March 7, 2022, Plaintiff Bobby Shed, proceeding pro se, initiated this
action by filing a complaint in the Northern District of Florida. (Doc. 1.) Because
the Middle District was a more appropriate venue, the Magistrate Judge
transferred the case and it was assigned to Judge Mizelle. (Doc. 7.) In his order
transferring the case, the Magistrate Judge noted that Mr. Shed’s complaint was a
so-called “shotgun” pleading because it was “vague and ambiguous” and because
it “suffers from various defects, such as the inclusion of extraneous information
unconnected to his claims.” (Doc. 7 at 1.)
Mr. Shed has since been allowed several opportunities to amend his
complaint to address its deficiencies, (Doc. 12; Doc. 18), but because his complaint
still suffered from the same deficiencies, the Court dismissed each one. Mr. Shed
then filed various motions and objections to the Court’s orders, (Doc. 24; Doc. 27),
which the Court resolved, (Doc. 26; Doc. 29).
Most recently, the Court dismissed Mr. Shed’s Second Amended Complaint,
explaining that it was “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not
obviously connected to any particular cause of action.” (Doc. 29) (quoting Weiland
v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1322 (11th Cir. 2015)). The Court
then gave him one month to file a third (and final) amended complaint. He now
files three motions, asking for extension and clarification.
Mr. Shed first moves for an extension of time to file his third amended
complaint. (Doc. 32.) Finding good cause, the Court grants his motion for an
extension of time in part. He has until September 30, 2022, to file a third amended
complaint. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2).
Second, Mr. Shed moves for clarification regarding which judge is assigned
to his case. (Doc. 31.) This case was assigned to Judge Mizelle on June 15, 2022.
(Doc. 9.) However, with the presiding judge’s consent, any district judge can enter
an order in any case. This flexibility is necessary to efficiently manage caseloads in
one of the busiest dockets in the United States.
Finally, Mr. Shed moves for clarification regarding the Court’s order
dimissing his amended complaint. (Doc. 30.) He asks whether it is “permissible
for the same set of facts to support various claims for relief within a complaint” or
“to support similar claims for relief based on different injuries,” and “[w]hat
consideration . . . this Honorable Court give[s] to evidence.” He also asks, as he
did in his last motion for clarification, for examples of vague, conclusory, or
immaterial facts. As the Court explained in its previous order, (Doc. 26), the Court
may not provide legal advice. But Mr. Shed is free to consult the Middle District’s
resources for pro se litigants. See Litigants Without Lawyers, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
FLORIDA, https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/litigants-without-lawyers (last visited
August 31, 2022).
Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension to file his second amended
complaint, (Doc. 32), is GRANTED-IN-PART.
a. By September 30, 2022, Plaintiff may file a third (and final)
amended complaint consistent with the directives of this Order
and in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)
and 10(b). Failure to file a second amended complaint by this
deadline will result in the dismissal of this action without further
notice.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification concerning the Presiding Judge,
(Doc. 31), is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification concerning the Court’s Order, (Doc.
30), is GRANTED-IN-PART.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on August 31, 2020.
/s/ William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO:
Plaintiff, pro se