Moore

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

KATRINA MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 6:25-cv-02040-AGM-DCI

CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH,

OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND OFFICER

LUIS CAMPOVERDE, INDIVIDUAL

AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;

Defendants,

ORDER

On November 20, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation (doc. # 7), recommending that Plaintiff Katrina Moore’s Motion to Proceed

in Forma Pauperis (doc. # 2) be denied without prejudice and that her Amended Complaint

(doc. # 6) be dismissed without prejudice as an improper shotgun pleading. Ms. Moore timely

objected to the Report and Recommendation on December 2, 2025. (Doc. # 8). Having

considered the Report and Recommendation, Ms. Moore’s objections, and the filings, the

Report and Recommendation is adopted for the reasons stated therein, Ms. Moore’s Motion

to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (doc. # 2) is denied without prejudice, and her Amended

Complaint (doc. # 6) is dismissed without prejudice.

After careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district

judge 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). Parties may object within fourteen days

of service of the Report and Recommendation, and “the court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.

The Report and Recommendation recommended that Ms. Moore’s Amended

Complaint be dismissed without prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading under Weiland

v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015). The Magistrate Judge

additionally concluded that the Court was unable to “assess whether Plaintiff is a pauper

without a complete picture of her monthly income, expenses, and any amounts she may have

in cash or bank accounts,” and recommended this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed

in Forma Pauperis.

Ms. Moore did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that her Amended

Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. # 8 at 1). Instead, she requested the

opportunity to promptly amend her Amended Complaint under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, and sought a determination that her amendment related back to the date

of the original filing. (Doc. # 8 at 1–2). She requested rejection of the recommendation that

her Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis be denied, or, alternatively, requested that she be given

the opportunity to supplement her Motion. (Doc. # 8 at 3).

On de novo review, it is evident that the Amended Complaint does not allege claims as

separate counts. Nor does the Amended Complaint make clear which counts apply to which

defendants. Under those circumstances, dismissal is appropriate because the Amended

Complaint fails “to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the

grounds upon which each claim rests.” See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323.

It is also clear that the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is inadequate. Specifically,

it does not include sufficient financial information for the Court to “compar[e] [plaintiff’s]

assets and liabilities in order to determine whether [she] has satisfied the poverty requirement.”

See Thomas v. Sec'y of Dep't of Veterans Affs., 358 F. App'x 115, 116 (11th Cir. 2009).

Rather than objecting to the portion of the Report and Recommendation that

recommended dismissal of the Amended Complaint and denial of the Motion to Proceed in

Forma Pauperis, Plaintiff’s objection presents two requests for affirmative relief. First, she

sought leave to amend the Amended Complaint and the motion. Second, she sought a ruling

that any amendment relates back to the date the original complaint was filed. While requests

for affirmative relief must be brought in the form of a motion, see Brown v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,

No. 617CV633ORL40KRS, 2018 WL 672276, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2018) (finding party’s

objection to the Magistrate Judge’s report “ignore[d] the well-settled procedural rule that

requests for affirmative relief shall be stated in a separate filing”), Ms. Moore’s request for an

opportunity to amend her complaint and re-file the motion is consistent with the Magistrate

Judge’s recommendations. Because the Report and Recommendation is due to be adopted,

Ms. Moore will be given an opportunity to amend both the Amended Complaint and the

Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. However, her second request for relief will not be

addressed here. If a ruling is required on the relation-back issue, that ruling will be made when

presented by an appropriate motion when both parties can be heard.

Accordingly, having conducted its de nove review, the Court adopts the Report and

Recommendation in full for the reasons stated there.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation (doc. # 7) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the

Court;

2. PlaintifPs Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (doc. # 2) is DENIED without

ptejudice;

3. Plaintiffs objections to the Report and Recommendation (doc. # 8) are

OVERRULED;

4, PlaintifPs Amended Complaint (doc. # 6) is DISMISSED with leave to amend;

5. On or before December 21, Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint; and

6. If Plaintiff does not timely amend the complaint, this dismissal will be deemed with

prejudice without further notice.

GAYLORD MOE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on December 16, 2025.

Copies Furnished To:

Pro se Parties

Counsel of Record