Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

ALEXANDER-MARQUIS:

JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-2466-WFJ-NHA

TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT,

OFFICER KYLE R. BROWN

Defendants.

___________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without pre-paying the

filing fee (Doc. 2) be denied without prejudice and that his Complaint (Doc. 1)

be dismissed without prejudice, because it fails to comply with the federal rules

or to state a claim for relief.

I. Background

Plaintiff Alexander-Marquis: Johnson sues the Tampa Police

Department (TPD) and Officer Kyle R. Brown, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1983.

Doc. 1. Plaintiff alleges that Officer Brown pulled over Plaintiff’s vehicle and

issued him a citation for driving without a license, then “coerced” Plaintiff to

sign the citation. Doc. 1-1, p. 2. Plaintiff alleges that he objected to the citation

“because he did not wish to contract with the state.” Id. Plaintiff asserts that

Officer Brown’s actions required Plaintiff to participate in local court

proceedings. Id.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated laws relating to “Armed

deprivation of rights under color of law 18 USC 242, Armed violation of due

process 32 CFR 536.77(a)(3)(vii), Neglect/Failure to protect/act 18 USC 1621-

42 USC 1986, Armed conspiracy against rights of people 8 USC 241, Denied

right to truth in evidence 18 USC 3571.” Doc. 1, p. 4.

Plaintiff applies to proceed in this lawsuit without paying the filing fee.

Doc. 2. In his application to excuse the payment, he states that he makes $1332

per month in employment and an additional $1000 per month in “self-

employment.” Doc. 2, section 1. In a separate section of the application,

however, he reports that he earns $2664 per month from Eastside Preparatory

School and an additional $2000 per month from NGL Baptist Church. Id.

section 2. He reports his total living expenses per month are $2850.

II. Standard of Review/Applicable Law

The federal statute that governs the right to bring a lawsuit without pre-

paying a filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, “is designed to ensure that indigent

litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts.” Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Accordingly, the statute permits a litigant to

commence an action in federal court “by filing in good faith an affidavit stating

. . . that he is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit.” Id. “Congress recognized,

however, that a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the

public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from

filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Id. To that end, section 1915

provides that a court shall dismiss a case if the court determines the action is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or

seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is frivolous when a complaint lacks an

arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.

Federal courts must hold pro se filings (meaning those papers filed by a

party who represents himself) to “less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). More

specifically, a court must “provide[] pro se parties wide latitude when

construing their pleadings and papers” and “use common sense to determine

what relief the party desires.” S.E.C. v. Elliot, 953 F.2d 1560, 1582 (11th Cir.

1992). Nonetheless, courts need not exempt pro se litigants from complying

with the requirements imposed by the law and rules of procedure. See Brown

v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1990); Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d

835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989).

One such rule is Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which

states: “If doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate

transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count.” FED. R. CIV.

P. 10(b). It further requires that a Plaintiff “state its claims . . . in numbered

paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”

Id.

In addition, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that

a plaintiff describe what action a defendant took that violated the law. A

complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED.R.CIV.P. 8(a)(2). The pleading standard

in Rule 8 does not require “‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands more

than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007)). Conclusions and characterizations of conduct are

insufficient; a complaint must allege enough facts to show that each element

of an offense is satisfied. Rivell v. Priv. Health Care Sys., Inc., 520 F.3d 1308,

1309 (11th Cir. 2008). The allegations in the complaint “must be simple,

concise, and direct.” FED.R.CIV. P. 8(d)(1).

Complaints that break Rules 10 and 8 are sometimes considered

“shotgun pleadings.” There are four types of shotgun pleadings:

The most common type . . . is a complaint containing multiple

counts where 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. The

next most common type . . . is a complaint that . . . is . . . replete

with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously

connected to any particular cause of action. The third type of

shotgun pleading is one . . . [does] not separate[e] into a different

count each cause of action or claim for relief. Fourth, and finally,

there is . . . asserting 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. 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.

Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir.

2015).

The Eleventh Circuit has instructed that a district court “must intervene .

. . and order a replead[ing]” of a shotgun complaint, even if the defendant does

not move for a more definite statement. Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1133

(11th Cir. 2001).

III. Discussion

Plaintiff’s Complaint cannot carry this case forward, because it does not

comply with the federal pleading rules.

The Complaint alleges facts suggesting that Officer Brown pulled over

and cited Plaintiff for driving without a license and that Plaintiff believed the

citation was unfair because Plaintiff did not wish to contract with the state.

Doc. 1-1, p. 2. In a section separate from the facts, the Complaint lists several

statutes (and a regulation) which he claims Defendants TPD and Brown

violated: 18 U.S.C. § 242, 32 C.F.R. § 536.77(a)(3)(vii), 18 U.S.C. 1621- 42

U.S.C. § 1986, 8 USC § 241, and 18 U.S.C. § 3571. Doc. 1, p. 4.

However, the Complaint does not make clear which facts are meant to

support which claim(s) against which Defendant(s). Nor does it otherwise

make clear how the facts demonstrate that one or both Defendants violated the

various laws Plaintiff cites. And, while the Court gives great leniency to pro se

pleadings, the Court cannot on its own tell how the facts Plaintiff alleges would

support any of the violations he claims were committed.

In other words, the Complaint does not comply with the Federal Rules

governing complaints. Because the Complaint does not comply with the federal

rules, it presently has no chance of success. The Court cannot, therefore, allow

Plaintiff to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The Court cannot permit Plaintiff to proceed without paying the fee for

the additional reason that his motion to proceed without payment suggests

that his monthly income may significantly exceed his monthly expenses. That

is, the application does not make clear that he is unable to pay the $405 filing

fee.

II. Conclusion

Thus, I respectfully RECOMMEND:

a. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE;

b. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

c. Plaintiff be given 21 days from the date of the District Court’s

order to file an amended complaint! addressing the problems with

his complaint, and either (1) pay the filing fee, or (2) file an

amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis. If Plaintiff fails to

timely file an amended complaint and either (1) the filing fee, or

(2) file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis, I

recommend that the District Court dismiss the case with prejudice.

SUBMITTED for the District Court’s consideration on November 9 2025.

NATALIE HIRT ADAMS

United States Magistrate Judge

' Tf Plaintiff files a new complaint, he should label the document

"Amended Complaint" and should not refer back to or incorporate by reference

the original complaint. For each law or right he says was violated, he should

write a separate “Count” and label each count by number, like "Count One,

Count Two," etc. He should say, for each Count, which Defendant or

Defendants he means to accuse and what law he/they violated. Plaintiff should

explain, in plain but detailed language exactly what happened. Plaintiff should

make sure that the facts listed in each court address all of the elements

necessary to prove that the law listed in each count was violated.

NOTICE TO PARTIES

A party has fourteen days from this date to file written objections to the

Report and Recommendation’s factual findings and legal conclusions. A party’s

failure to file written objections waives that party’s right to challenge on appeal

any unobjected-to factual finding or legal conclusion the district judge adopts

from the Report and Recommendation. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1. To expedite

resolution, parties may file a joint notice waiving the 14-day objection period.