Davis v. Pasco County State Attorney Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

DAVIS MATTHEW AARON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:24-cv-02907-KKM-NHA

PASCO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,

Defendant.

___________________________________

ORDER

On December 5, 2024, Davis Matthew Aaron, proceeding pro se, brought

this action against the Pasco County Sheriff, the Paso County Public Defender’s

Office, the Pasco County State Attorneys Office, and the Paso County Board of

County Commissioners. Am. Compl. (Doc. 3). He alleges several violations of the

U.S. Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act. Because Aaron’s complaint is a

shotgun pleading, this action is dismissed without prejudice. Weiland v. Palm Beach

Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015).

“Complaints that violate either Rule 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both, are often

disparagingly referred to as ‘shotgun pleadings.’ ” Id. The Eleventh Circuit has

explained that such complaints are “altogether unacceptable” because they “exact

an intolerable toll on the trial court’s docket.” Cramer v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258,

1263 (11th Cir. 1997). And although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally

and held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, the Court

has “little tolerance for shotgun pleadings.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d

1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018); see also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.

1989) (“[O]nce a pro se . . . litigant is in court, he is subject to the relevant law and

rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (italics omitted)).

Weiland outlines four common types of shotgun pleadings: (1) a complaint

that contains multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all

preceding counts; (2) a complaint that is replete with conclusory, vague, and

immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action; (3) a

complaint that fails to separate into different counts each cause of action or claim

for relief; and (4) a complaint that asserts 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. 792 F.3d

at 1321–23. “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. at 1323.

The complaint violates the second and fourth categories of shotgun

pleading. Aaron asserts conclusory facts that are not obviously connected to any

particular cause of action, and instead makes legal conclusions. See id. at 1322. This

flaw alone warrants dismissal on shotgun pleadings grounds. See, e.g., Arrington

v. Green, 757 F. App’x 796, 798 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal of a pro se

complaint as a shotgun pleading that contained “scattered legal arguments . . .

legal conclusions, and even (incomplete) citations to legal authorities” instead of

“factual allegations”); Antoine v. Sch. Bd. of Collier Cnty., Fla., No. 16-CV-379, 2019

WL 913358, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2019) (dismissing complaint for including

improper legal arguments which are inappropriate in a complaint). And his

2

complaint refers generally to the defendant or defendants but does not specify

which causes of action apply to which defendant. See Weiland, 792 F.3d 1321-23;

Compl. at 7-8.

Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 3) is DISMISSED without

prejudice.

2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint no later than January 9, 2025. If

Plaintiff fails to refile in a timely manner, this action will become subject

to dismissal without further notice.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 26, 2024.

athryn’ Kimball Mizelle

United States District Judge