# Jordan

> District Court, M.D. Florida · January 5, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11236046

## Case

- **Full name:** Joshua Jordan v. Bob Henriquez, in his official capacity as Hillsborough County Property Appraiser
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** January 5, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11236046

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “both the Supreme Court and our Court have confirmed that the comity doctrine is to be construed broadly in state taxation cases”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

JOSHUA JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:25-cv-1800-MSS-CPT

BOB HENRIQUEZ, in his official
capacity as Hillsborough County Property
Appraiser,

Defendant.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Defendant
Hillsborough County Property Appraiser’s Opposed Motion to Dismiss Verified
Second Amended Complaint, (Dkt. 47), and Plaintiff’s response thereto. (Dkt. 51)
Upon consideration of all relevant filings, case law, and being otherwise fully advised,
the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises from a dispute over whether certain real property located at
3306 S. Omar Ave. Tampa, FL 33629 (the “Property”) is entitled to an exemption
from ad valorem taxation because it is used for a religious purpose. See Fla. Stat. §
196.196. Plaintiff Joshua Jordan is the Executive Director and Senior Pastor of Faith
Action Church, Inc. (the “Church”). (Dkt. 44 at ¶ 33) Plaintiff incorporated the
Church as a Florida not-for-profit corporation on April 17, 2024. (Dkt. 44-13 at 12–
13) On April 18, 2024, Royce Ann Joyce Jordan, Plaintiff’s spouse, created the Faith
Action Church Parsonage Trust (the “Trust”) and granted the Property to the Trust.
(Dkts. 44-2; 44-13 at 25) Ms. Jordan is the Trustee of the Trust, while Plaintiff and his

progeny are the beneficiaries of the Trust. The Church is not a beneficiary of the Trust.
The Property is designated as a parsonage in the Trust documents. (Dkt. 44-2)
On October 6, 2024, the state of Florida issued a Consumer’s Certificate of
Exemption, which provides that the Church is “exempt from the payment of Florida
sales and use tax on real property rented, transient rental property rented, tangible

personal property purchased or rented, or services purchased.” (Dkt. 44-3) The
Certificate categorized the Church’s exemption category as “Religious-Physical
Place.” (Id.)
The Church also submitted an application for the Property to be exempt from
ad valorem taxes because it is used for a religious purpose.1 (Id. at ¶ 66) On April 11,

2025, Henry McCloud, Manager of the Exemption Compliance Department in the
Hillsborough County Property Appraiser’s Office, informed Plaintiff that his
application was being denied because (1) he did not currently reside at the Property,
and (2) the Property was generating rental income. (Id. at ¶ 67) Plaintiff then advised
Mr. McCloud that all rental income was going back to the Church and being used for

exempt purposes and therefore it should not be considered profit making. (Id. at ¶¶ 67–

1 The Church was listed as the “applicant name” on the application, and the application was
signed by Plaintiff as “Senior Pastor” and Royce Jordan as “trustee/director.” (Dkt. 44-13 at
7–9)
72; Dkt. 44-4) See Fla. Stat. § 196.196(4) (stating that property claimed as exempt for
religious purposes which is used for profitmaking purposes shall be subject to ad
valorem taxation, but “[u]se of property for functions not requiring a business or

occupational license conducted by the organization at its primary residence, the
revenue of which is used for wholly exempt purposes, shall not be considered profit
making.”).
On June 27, 2025, Defendant Bob Henriquez, in his official capacity as
Hillsborough County Property Appraiser, denied Plaintiff’s request for the exemption.

(Dkt. 44-5) The letter and notice of denial (“Denial Letter”) stated that the application
was denied because (1) applicant was not the owner of record on January 1 or had a
proportional interest to the real estate, (2) lacked evidence of religious activity or
services, and (3) the applicant did not meet the statutory criteria for a charitable or
nonprofit entity. (Id.) Plaintiff challenges these reasons. First, Plaintiff asserts that the

Trust owned the Property on January 1.2 Plaintiff then notes that Defendant’s office
never requested any documentation of religious activity or services. Among others,
Plaintiff points to online services, physical services in the Church’s Tokyo, Japan
location, and charitable support as examples of the Church’s religious activity. (Dkt.
44 at ¶ 97) The Denial Letter advised Plaintiff that appeals could be made to the Value

2 From Defendant’s perspective, the issue is that the Church is listed as the applicant on the
exemption application, and the Church did not own the Property (the Trust did). (Dkt. 44-13
at 2–3) Plaintiff alleges that the Trust is an “integrated auxiliary” of the Church and thus
shares in the Church’s “exempt religious status.” (Dkt. 44 at ¶ 44)
Adjustment Board within 30 days. (Dkt. 44-5) Because the constitutional issues
involved, however, Plaintiff opted to seek a resolution in federal court.
After receiving the Denial Letter, Plaintiff submitted a public records request to

Defendant’s office seeking data on its denials of religious exemption applications since
Defendant took office in 2013. (Dkt. 44 at ¶ 132) Plaintiff alleges that these records
demonstrate a “clear pattern of unconstitutional religious determinations by
Defendant’s office,” because they often indicate more denials than applications. (Id.
at ¶ 134) For example, in 2024, Defendant issued 31 denial letters despite receiving

only 10 applications. (Id.) Plaintiff also discovered that Defendant did not retain
records from 2013–2018, despite the requirement for property appraisers to maintain
such records for 10 years.3 (Id. at ¶¶136–37)
From here, Plaintiff also alleges that, “[u]pon information and belief, Defendant
has engaged in a pattern and practice of intentional misconduct and discriminatory

application of religious exemption standards, applying lenient review standards and
favorable presumptions to Catholic religious organizations while subjecting Protestant
religious groups to heightened scrutiny, fabricated denial reasons, and discriminatory
treatment.” (Dkt. 44 at ¶ 116) After further attempts to resolve the exemption denial,
Plaintiff initiated this action. Plaintiff asserts that he is not seeking any tax-related

relief. Instead, Plaintiff challenges Defendant’s “unlawful practice of imposing
unlawful religious sufficiency tests on churches seeking tax exemption.” (Id. at ¶ 10)

3 Plaintiff raises various related challenges to Defendant’s internal operations, including the
delegation of religious exemption denials to others in his office.
The Second Amended Complaint brings eighteen claims against Defendant: (1)
Violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 196; (2) Procedural Due Process Violations; (3)
Violation of Article I, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution; (4) Violation of the Florida

Religious Freedom Restoration Act; (5) Violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the
First Amendment; (6) Violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment;
(7) Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (8)
Violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”);
(9) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (10) Gross Negligence; (11) Fraudulent

Misrepresentation; (12) Gross Negligence; (13) Procedural Due Process Violations;
(14) Due Process Violations; (15) Fraud and Misrepresentation; (16) Conspiracy to
Violate Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985; (17) Unjust Enrichment; and (18)
Municipal Liability – Monell Claim. (Dkt. 44)
Defendant moves to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, arguing that the

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute because of the Tax Injunction
Act, the comity doctrine, and because Plaintiff lacks standing. For the reasons
explained below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.4
II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. “[B]ecause a federal court is
powerless to act beyond its statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, a court must
zealously [e]nsure that jurisdiction exists over a case[.]” Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d

4 Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are barred under the Tax Injunction Act and
that abstention is warranted under the comity doctrine, it does not address Plaintiff’s standing.
1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001). Motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) may attack jurisdiction facially or factually.
Morrison v. Amway Corp., 323 F.3d 920, 924 n.5 (11th Cir. 2003). If the challenge is

facial, the court merely evaluates whether the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis
for subject matter jurisdiction, and the allegations in the complaint are taken as true
for the purposes of the motion. McElmurray v. Consol. Gov. of Augusta-Richmond
Cnty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2007).
III. DISCUSSION

a. Tax Injunction Act
Defendant argues that the Second Amended Complaint is due to be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Tax Injunction Act. The Tax
Injunction Act states: “The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the

assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and
efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341. “The Tax
Injunction Act is a ‘jurisdictional rule’ and constitutes a ‘broad jurisdictional barrier.’”
I.L. v. Alabama, 739 F.3d 1273, 1282 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Moe v. Confederated
Salish & Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Rsrv., 425 U.S. 463, 470 (1976)). The Act

“restricts the power of federal district courts to prevent collection or enforcement of
state taxes.” Arkansas v. Farm Credit Servs. of Cent. Ark., 520 U.S. 821, 823 (1997).
Even when “important constitutional rights are at issue,” district courts lack
jurisdiction to review disputes which concern taxes under state law if an adequate state
remedy exists. Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. City of Hallandale, 734 F.2d 666, 672–73
(11th Cir. 1984) (citing California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393 (1983))
(“Nor is the jurisdictional bar to challenging state tax laws in federal courts avoided
when suit is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”). “The burden is on the plaintiff to allege

facts sufficient to overcome the TIA’s jurisdictional bar.” Capel v. Pasco Cnty., No.
24-12793, 2025 WL 1409399, at *1 (11th Cir. May 15, 2025).5
The Tax Injunction Act bars federal jurisdiction if: “(1) the relief requested by
the plaintiff will ‘enjoin, suspend, or restrain’ a state tax assessment and (2) the state
affords the plaintiff a ‘plain, speedy and efficient remedy[.]’” Williams v. City of

Dothan, 745 F.2d 1406, 1411 (11th Cir. 1984). The Eleventh Circuit has held that
Florida law provides plaintiffs a “plain, speedy, and efficient remedy.” Osceola v. Fla.
Dep’t of Revenue, 893 F.2d 1231, 1233 (11th Cir. 1990).
Plaintiff states that “no state tax remedy can adequately address” Defendant’s
“ultra vires religious determinations that violate the First Amendment” because “such

determinations exceed all statutory authority and involve First Amendment rights the
Constitution forbids government from evaluating.” (Dkt. 51 at 17) Plaintiff cites no
authority for the proposition that he cannot raise constitutional claims in Florida state
courts. This is because there is no limitation on his ability to bring his claims in state
court. See, e.g., Crocker v. Pleasant, 778 So. 2d 978, 982 n.6 (Fla. 2001) (“A claim

under section 1983 may be brough in state court.”) (citing Maine v. Thiboutot, 488

5 The Court notes that “[a]lthough an unpublished opinion is not binding on this court, it is
persuasive authority. See 11th Cir. R. 36-2.” United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1289
(11th Cir. 2000).
U.S. 1, 10–11 (1980)); see also Barfield v. Cnty. of Palm Beach, Off. of Prop.
Appraiser, No. 10-cv-80980, 2011 WL 1458003, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2011) (“The
Florida state courts will protect Plaintiff’s constitutional rights since Florida ‘[s]tate

courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal
liberties and uphold federal law.’”) (quoting California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457
U.S. 393, 417 n.37 (1982)); Carson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 293 F.2d 337, 339 (5th
Cir. 1961) (“[T]he Constitution of the United States is as applicable to and controlling
upon state courts as it is federal courts. So in this case plaintiffs do not lose any

constitutional rights by being forced to first try their issues in a state court instead of a
federal court.”).6 Thus, the Court holds that Florida provides a plain, speedy, and
efficient remedy.
Plaintiff argues that the Act is nonetheless inapplicable because the
determination of whether real property is entitled to a religious exemption does not

qualify as an “assessment.” In support of this argument, Plaintiff relies on the
distinction between “assessment” and “information gathering” discussed in Direct
Mktg. Ass’n v. Brohl, 575 U.S. 1, 8–9 (2015). In Brohl, a trade association of direct-
to-consumer retailers sued the Director of Colorado’s Department of Revenue, seeking
to enjoin the state’s imposition of sales and use tax-related “notice and reporting

requirements” on out of state retailers. Id. at 5–6. Colorado required retailers that did

6 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), the Eleventh Circuit
adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to
the close of business on September 30, 1981.
not collect Colorado sales and use tax to notify their Colorado customers of the
customer’s duty to file a sales tax return and provide those customers with annual
reports detailing their purchases. The retailers were also required to send an annual

report to the state “listing the names of their Colorado customers, their known
addresses, and the total amount each Colorado customer paid for Colorado purchases
in the prior calendar year.” Id. The purpose of this reporting was to facilitate
Colorado’s collection of sales taxes from the retailers’ customers.
In determining whether the Tax Injunction Act barred the plaintiff’s claims, the

Brohl Court looked to the Federal Tax Code, which treated “information gathering as
a phase of tax administration procedure that occurs before assessment, levy, or
collection.” Id. at 8. “This step includes private reporting of information used to
determine tax liability.” Id. The Court further explained that “assessment,” the next
step in the process, “refers to the official recording of a taxpayer’s liability, which

occurs after information relevant to the calculation of that liability is reported to the
taxing authority.” Id. at 9. The Court then stated that it “might also be understood
more broadly to encompass the process by which that amount is calculated.” Id. The
Court then held that the Tax Injunction Act did not bar the plaintiff’s suit because the
“TIA is keyed to the acts of assessment, levy, and collection themselves, and

enforcement of the notice and reporting requirements is none of these.” Id. at 12.7

7 The Court took no position on whether the suit might nevertheless be barred under the
comity doctrine. Id. at 15.
Relying on this precedent, Plaintiff characterizes his suit as a challenge to
Defendant’s “pre-assessment screening process,” and not a challenge to the
“assessment, levy, or collection” of taxes. The Court disagrees. First, the Court notes

that the Brohl Court was discussing information gathering and assessment in the
context of sales and use tax, which is procedurally distinct from property taxes. In
Hibbs v. Winn, the Supreme Court explained that “[t]he term ‘assessment’ is used in
a variety of ways in tax law. In the property-tax setting, the word usually refers to the
process by which the taxing authority assigns a taxable value to real or personal

property.” 524 U.S. 88, 100 n.3 (2004).8 The determination of whether an exemption
applies is a part of the assessment process. See Turner v. Jordan, 117 F.4th 1289, 1296
(11th Cir. 2024) (“A property appraiser assesses property value, adjusts those values
by approving or rejecting exemptions, and certifies this information on the tax roll.”)
(citing Fla. Stat. §§ 193 et seq.); see also Nikolitis v. Ballinger, 736 So. 2d 1253, 1255

(Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (stating it is “clear” that the application of a homestead
exemption is an “integral part” of a “tax assessment”).
Indeed, Florida state courts have consistently held that challenges to the
determination of whether real property is entitled to an exemption are subject to the
requirements of Fla. Stat. § 194.171, which requires actions “contest[ing] a tax

assessment” to be brought within 60 days after the contested assessment is certified.

8 The Brohl Court cited the Hibbs Court’s footnote in support of the idea that “assessment”
may be “understood more broadly to encompass the process by which [the tax] amount is
calculated.” 575 U.S. at 9.
See, e.g., Ward v. Brown, 894 So. 2d 811, 815 (Fla. 2004) (“We conclude that the
petitioners’ argument that ‘classification’ challenges resulting in the denial of a tax
exemption are entitled to a four-year statute of limitations period while other claims

are not, would be contrary to the spirit of the tax assessment statutes[.]”); Nikolitis v.
Hanna, 92 So. 3d 299, 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“[I]t is well established that a
challenge concerning entitlement to a tax exemption is a challenge to an assessment
of taxes, for purposes of section 194.171.”) (emphasis in original).

Finally, even if “assessment” in these circumstances were limited to the “official
recording of taxpayer liability” as Plaintiff argues, Plaintiff’s requested relief would
nevertheless enjoin, suspend, or restrain the assessment of taxes. Plaintiff asks the
Court to prevent Defendant from denying any applications for religious exemptions.
Considering that, as a property appraiser, Defendant “assesses property value, adjusts

those values by approving or rejecting exemptions, and certifies this information on
the tax roll,” Plaintiff’s request for relief would prevent Defendant from both adjusting
the assessed property value and certifying the information on the tax roll. Turner, 117
F.4th at 1296.
Indeed, while not binding authority, federal courts across the country have

consistently held—after the Brohl decision—that challenges to exemption
determinations in property tax matters are barred by the Tax Injunction Act. See, e.g.,
Marvin v. Allen, No. 23-cv-5947, 2024 WL 4290722, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2024)
(“[S]uits seeking property-tax exemptions . . . are requests to restrain the ‘assessment,
levy[,] or collection’ of a ‘tax.’ By asking the Court to grant a STAR exemption,
Plaintiff effectively asks the Court ‘to determine that [Plaintiff] does not owe property
taxes the [County] has determined are due and owing.”); Baker ex rel. S.B. v. Burghart,
No. 5:25-cv-4110, 2024 WL 2783791, at *3 (D. Kan. May 30, 2024) (suit in which

plaintiffs sought “court order that would have the practical effect of allowing [them],
along with an immeasurable score of others, to claim this tax exemption” would lower
the amount of revenue the state could collect and thus fell “in the traditional heartland
of TIA cases”); Stark v. Town of Rumford, No. 2:20-cv-66, 2020 WL 6785935, at *4
(D. Me. Nov. 18, 2020) (“I lack jurisdiction to adjudicate claims based on the Town’s

imposition or assessment of property tax, including the Town’s alleged failure to grant
the Plaintiffs an exemption based on their religious status.”); Islamic Cmty. Ctr. for
Mid Westchester v. City of Yonkers Landmark Pres. Bd., 258 F. Supp. 3d 405, 414
(S.D.N.Y. 2017) (“[T]o the extent plaintiffs argue their claim is not ‘related to the
collection of state taxes,’ but rather is based on the revocation of tax exempt status, the

Court fails to see how this distinction matters. In either situation, the claim is that
defendants administered the state tax system in a discriminatory way and therefore
violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Comity and the Tax Injunction Act plainly bar
the Court from adjudicating such a claim.”); see also Barfield, 2011 WL 1458003, at
*2–3 (stating that Plaintiffs’ claims challenging denial of exemption from ad valorem

taxes and “seeking an order compelling the Palm Beach Appraiser’s Office to institute
comprehensive changes to its tax assessment procedure,” were barred by the Tax
Injunction Act because “although stated as a Section 1983 action, [the case was] a
challenge to Defendants’ exercise of their statutory duties in assessing the Plaintiffs’
property”).
b. Comity

Even if the Tax Injunction Act did not preclude jurisdiction in this case,
Plaintiff’s claims are due to be dismissed on comity grounds. The comity doctrine is a
doctrine of abstention that reflects the “belief that the National Government will fare
best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their functions in separate

ways.” Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass’n, Inc. v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100, 112
(1981). The doctrine applies in state taxation cases, preventing “federal courts from
entertaining claims for relief that risk disrupting state tax administration.” Levin v.
Commerce Energy, Inc., 560 U.S. 413, 417 (2010). The doctrine is to be construed
broadly in state taxation cases. Turner, 117 F.4th at 1301. Taxpayers alleging their

federal rights have been violated by state or local tax practices must seek relief through
state remedies, so long as those remedies are “plain, adequate, and complete.” Fair
Assessment, 454 U.S. at 116.
To survive dismissal under the comity doctrine, it is the plaintiff’s burden to
establish that state court remedies are not “plain, adequate, and complete.” Turner,

117 F.4th at 1305. “A state court remedy meets these minimal procedural criteria only
when it provides the taxpayer with a full hearing and judicial determination at which
she may raise any and all constitutional objections to the tax.” Id. (quotations omitted)
(emphasis in original). The Eleventh Circuit has held that Florida law provides “plain,
adequate, and complete state remedies.” See, e.g., Capel, 2025 WL 1409399, at *2.
Because “there is ‘no significant difference’ between the Tax Injunction Act’s ‘plain,
speedy and efficient’ state remedy and the comity doctrine’s ‘plain, adequate, and
complete’ state remedy,” Plaintiff’s challenges to the adequacy of Florida’s procedures

fail for the same reasons already discussed. Turner, 117 F.4th at 1304 n.19 (citing Fair
Assessment, 454 U.S. at 116 n.8).
Plaintiff primarily argues that the Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of the
comity doctrine, which is now no broader than the Tax Injunction Act and is
inapplicable because he does not seek to prevent tax collection. In support of this

argument, Plaintiff relies on Hibbs, in which the Supreme Court noted in a footnote
that it has “relied upon ‘principles of comity’ . . . to preclude original federal-court
jurisdiction only when plaintiffs have sought district-court aid in order to arrest or
countermand state tax collection.” 542 U.S. at 107 n.9. In Levin, however, the
Supreme Court reaffirmed that the “comity doctrine is more embracive than the TIA.”

560 U.S. at 424. The Court then expressly clarified that the Hibbs footnote did not
restrict the doctrine’s applicability. Id. at 430 (stating that it “did not deploy the
footnote to recast the comity doctrine”). Thus, Plaintiff is incorrect. See also
Turner,117 F.4th at 1301 (noting that “both the Supreme Court and our Court have
confirmed that the comity doctrine is to be construed broadly in state taxation cases”).

Based on principles of comity, abstention is warranted. To award Plaintiff relief,
the Court would have to decide that Defendant’s procedures for determining whether
property is entitled to a religious exemption violate the Constitution. This would
conflict with the principle that “the federal courts should generally avoid interfering
with the sensitive and peculiarly local concerns surrounding state taxation schemes.”
Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Collins, 921 F.2d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 1991) (citation
omitted); see Turner v. Baldwin, No. 3:18-cv-1275, 2019 WL 5423389, at *5 (M.D.

Fla. Oct. 23, 2019) (finding abstention appropriate where “the Court would have to
decide that [the defendants’] administration of procedures for applying and removing
the homestead tax exemption and for effectuating the tax sale violated [the plaintiff’s]
constitutional rights”); Legion of Christ, Inc. v. Town of Mount Pleasant, No. 18-cv-
11246, 2020 WL 4288072, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2020) (stating that “a ruling

passing judgment on the constitutionality” of the Town’s “repeated denials of
Plaintiff’s tax exemption applications” is “precisely the kind of determination that
would ‘disrupt’ New York State’s tax administration, rendering it barred by the
principle of comity”); Islamic Cmty. Ctr., 258 F. Supp. 3d at 414 (holding that comity
plainly bars the court from adjudicating claim that defendants administered the state

tax system in a discriminatory way and therefore violated plaintiffs’ constitutional
rights).
c. RLUIPA
In his response to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff argues that RLUIPA provides

an independent federal cause of action (and resulting basis for this Court’s
jurisdiction). But the RLUIPA claim faces the same issues as the other claims in the
Second Amended Complaint – it is barred by the Tax Injunction Act and the comity
doctrine. Even if it were not, however, Plaintiff’s claim would fail. RLUIPA provides,
in relevant part, that “[n]o government shall impose or implement a land use regulation
in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person[.]”
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1). The denial of a property tax exemption is not a land use
regulation. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(5) (defining “land use regulation” as “a zoning

or landmarking law, or the application of such a law, that limits or restricts a claimant’s
use or development of land”); Sandstrom v. Wendell, No. 1:23-cv-405, 2024 WL
1242415, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2024) (plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim failed to
plausibly state a claim upon which relief may be granted where the complaint failed to
“identify any restriction that actually limits his ability to practice his religion at the

properties unrelated to the properties’ tax status”).
d. Shotgun Pleading
Finally, the Court notes that the Second Amended Complaint is independently
due to be dismissed because it is an impermissible shotgun pleading. “Shotgun

pleadings violate Rule 8, which requires ‘a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ by fail[ing] to one degree or another . . .
to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds
upon which each claim rests.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1294–95
(11th Cir. 2018). The Eleventh Circuit has “identified four rough types or categories

of shotgun pleadings”: (i) “a complaint containing multiple counts where each count
adopts the allegations of all preceding counts”; (ii) a complaint that is “replete with
conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular
cause of action”; (iii) a complaint that fails to “separat[e] into a different count each
cause of action or claim for relief”; and (iv) a complaint that “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.”
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2015).

Even though Plaintiff is proceeding pro se (that is, without a lawyer) he must still
comply with these minimum pleading standards. See, e.g., Archer v. City of Winter
Haven, No. 8:16-CV-3067-T-36AAS, 2017 WL 11319170, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 8,
2017) (dismissing pro se complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading).
The Second Amended Complaint is a shotgun pleading because it falls into the

first two categories described above. First, the Second Amended Complaint contains
multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts. In
addition, the Second Amended Complaint is replete with conclusory, vague,
immaterial facts not connected to any particular cause of action. Plaintiff’s manner of

pleading is improper because he includes a litany of legal conclusions and argument
unrelated to any particular claim for relief. This has resulted in an 82-page complaint
containing 397 paragraphs. See Trump v. NY Times Co., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 8:25-
cv-2487-SDM-NHA, 2025 WL 2680597, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2025) (stating that
“a complaint remains an improper and impermissible place” for the “protracted

recitation and explanation of legal authority putatively supporting the pleader’s claim
for relief”); Whitley v. Nassau Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., No. 3:25-cv-441-MMH-MCR, 2025
WL 1294993, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 5, 2025) (“Cluttering a complaint with pages of
citations to legal authority is more confusing than clarifying, as both the Court and the
defendant are left to sort through the complaint to identify the factual allegations.”);
Arrington v. Green, 757 F. App’x 796, 797-98 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding that a district
court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint containing “scattered legal
arguments, legal standards, legal conclusions, and even (incomplete) citations to legal
authorities”).
IV. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Defendant Hillsborough County Property Appraiser’s Opposed Motion
to Dismiss Verified Second Amended Complaint, (Dkt. 47), is
GRANTED.
2. The Second Amended Complaint, (Dkt. 44), is DISMISSED.
3. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE any pending motions and
CLOSE the case.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 5th day of January 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Any Unrepresented Party
18

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11236046. Public record. Not legal advice.