McAfee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

ALEXANDER JUSTIN McAFEE

Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 8:25-cv-2666-KKM-TGW

State of Florida Attorney General;

Florida Dep’t of Highway Safety

and Motor Vehicles;

Alachua County Sheriffs Office;

Alachua County Chronicle,

et al.,

Defendants.

ri isi—‘“‘“‘<‘(‘i‘sC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The plaintiff filed an affidavit of indigency pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1915 (Doc. 2), seeking a waiver of the filing fee for his “Verified

Master Complaint and Brief in Support” (Doc. 1). He alleges law

enforcement violated his constitutional rights during a highway stop that led

to his arrest.

The pleading is a shotgun complaint that does not state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. The factual allegations also indicate that

venue is improper.

Although it is unlikely that the plaintiff can state an actionable

claim against any of these defendants, I recommend that the complaint be

denied without prejudice to permit the pro se plaintiff one more opportunity

to file a cognizable complaint that also shows venue is appropriate in this

district.

I.

Under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1), the court may authorize the filing

of a civil lawsuit without prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an

affidavit that includes a statement of all assets showing an inability to pay

the filing fee and a statement of the nature of the action which shows that he

is entitled to redress. Even if the plaintiff proves indigency, the case shall

be dismissed if the action is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii).

Furthermore, although “allegations of a pro se complaint [are

held] to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers ....

this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a

party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an

action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir.

2014). Additionally, a pro se complaint “must still comply with procedural

rules governing the proper form of pleadings.” Hopkins v. St. Lucie Cnty.

Sch. Bd., 399 Fed. Appx. 563, 565 (11th Cir. 2010); see also McNeil v.

United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).

IL.

The plaintiff's complaint arises out of his arrest after law

enforcement stopped his vehicle in Gainesville, Florida (Doc. 1, p. 3). The

plaintiff alleges that he was unlawfully detained and arrested, after which his

vehicle was seized and auctioned without due process (Doc. 1, p. 3). He also

alleges that licensing statutes infringe on a purported constitutional “right to

travel” (id.).

The complaint clearly violates Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. It is unquestionably not “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” as

required by Rule 8(a)(2), F. R. Civ. P. Thus, the complaint is replete with

vague, conclusory and immaterial assertions and statements. For example,

the pleading includes a “Table of Contents,” “Table of Authorities,” “Legal

Definitions” and a “Memorandum of Law” (Doc. 1, pp. 1-4). Of course,

none of these categories belong in a complaint, much less are the assertions

therein material to stating a claim for relief (see, e.g., Doc. 1, p. 3, §VI

(defining “person” and “ENSLEGIS”). The complaint is also replete with

incoherent snippets such as “republican government principles violated” and

3 ,

that licensing laws are “adhesion contracts” (Doc. 1, p. 4, §VIII).

On the other hand, support for the plaintiff's claims of

constitutional violations is virtually non-existent, as he merely includes

conclusory allegations of wrongdoing without identifying facts from which

there are “plausible grounds to infer” the required elements of each claim.

Watts v. Florida International University, 495 F.3d 1289, 1295-96 (11th Cir.

2007). Moreover, the plaintiff “assert{[s] 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.” Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1325 (11th Cir. 2021). These

are just some of the many deficiencies of this complaint.

In sum, instead of being a “short and plain statement” of the

plaintiff's claims, the complaint is a shotgun pleading, as it forces the court

to sift through a multitude of irrelevant information and decide for itself

which are material to the claims asserted. See Id.; Anderson v. District

Board of Trustees of Central Florida Community College, 77 F.3d 364, 366-

67 (11th Cir. 1996). Shotgun pleadings “are flatly forbidden by the spirit, if

not the letter, of these rules.” Barmapov v. Amuial, supra, 986 F.3d at 1324.

Therefore, even construing the plaintiff's complaint liberally, Tannenbaum

v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998), the plaintiff's

complaint should be dismissed.

In this circumstance, however, it is appropriate to permit the

plaintiff to file an amended complaint because a pro se plaintiff generally

must be given at least one chance to amend a deficient complaint before the

district court dismisses the action with prejudice. See Silberman v. Miami

Dade Transit, 927 F.3d 1123, 1132 (11th Cir. 2019); Troville v. Venz, 303

F.3d 1256, 1260 n.5 (11™ Cir. 2002) (§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissal does not

allow the district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint without

allowing leave to amend as permitted under Rule 15, F.R. Civ. P.).

Additionally, in this matter, an amended complaint must

include allegations showing that venue in this district is appropriate. See

Lipofsky v. New York State Workers Comp. Bd., 861 F.2d 1257, 1258 (11th

Cir. 1988) (a court may dismiss a suit sua sponte for lack of venue after the

plaintiff has an opportunity to respond). The plaintiff asserts that venue is

appropriate here because he lives in Tampa and the events occurred in this

district (Doc. 1, p. 3). However, the plaintiff's residence is not a basis for

venue, and the factual allegations indicate that a substantial part of the events

giving rise to the claim occurred in Gainesville, Florida, so that venue is

:

proper in the United States District Court in the Northern District of Florida

(Doc. 1, p. 3). See 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2).

Accordingly, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed, but

with leave to file an amended complaint that corrects the multitude of

deficiencies in this pleading.

Respectfully submitted,

“ores ea

THOMAS G. WILSON

. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATED: November / 7 , 2025

NOTICE TO PARTIES

The parties have fourteen days from the date they are served a copy of this

report to file written objections to this report’s proposed findings and

recommendations or to seek an extension of the fourteen-day deadline to file

written objections. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). Under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), a

party’s failure to object to this report’s proposed findings and

recommendations waives that party’s right to challenge on appeal the district

court’s order adopting this report’s unobjected-to factual findings and legal

conclusions.