Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

SHEIK SALAAM EL,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:25-cv-1358-JEP-SJH

AUTO LOUNGE OF FLORIDA, LLC,

et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the undersigned on pro se Plaintiff’s Application to

Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form)

(“Application”). Doc. 2. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends

that the Application be denied and that this case be dismissed without prejudice.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed his Complaint for a Civil Case (“Complaint”), Doc. 1, along with

the Application, on November 17, 2025. On December 2, 2025, the undersigned

entered an Order (“Prior Order”) taking the Application under advisement and, after

identifying multiple issues and deficiencies to address and cure, directing that Plaintiff

had until December 23, 2025, to: (i) file an amended complaint in accordance with the

Court’s instructions and all applicable rules; and (ii) either pay the applicable filing fee

or file an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. 3. The Prior

Order also warned that Plaintiff’s failure to do so would likely result in a

recommendation that the Application be denied and that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. Id. at 8-9. Plaintiff has not paid the applicable filing fee or filed an

amended application to proceed IFP, an amended complaint, or anything else in

response to the Prior Order.

II. Standard

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the Court may allow a plaintiff who is a

natural person to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs where such plaintiff has

demonstrated through the filing of an affidavit that he is “unable to pay such fees or

give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Even assuming a motion sufficiently

demonstrates a plaintiff meets the financial criteria to proceed IFP, when such a

motion is filed, the Court is also obligated to review the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2) and to dismiss the case if it determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or

malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B).1 The Court should also order repleading sua sponte if presented with a

1 In considering whether a party has sufficiently stated a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the

same standards applicable under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. See Alba

v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Labels and conclusions”

or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” that amount to “naked assertions” will

not do. Id. Rather, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) demands “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

accusation.” Id. The well-pled allegations must nudge the claim “across the line from conceivable to

plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Courts accept “all factual allegations in the complaint as true”

pleading that does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule(s)”).

See Abel v. Porshe Cars N. Am., Inc., No. 6:24-cv-593-PGB-DCI, 2024 WL 4793326, at

*1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2024). Though pro se pleadings are construed liberally: (i) such

liberal construction does not permit a court “to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or

to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action”; and (ii) pro se

litigants must “comply with the rules of procedure.” LaCroix v. W. Dist. of Ky, 627 F.

App’x 816, 818 (11th Cir. 2015).2

III. Analysis

As explained in the Prior Order, even liberally construed, the Application and

Complaint are each deficient. See Doc. 3. At the outset, the Application is insufficient

as certain questions are left blank. See id. at 1-2. The Prior Order thus directed Plaintiff

to either pay the filing fee or file an amended application to proceed IFP, with all

questions properly completed. Id. at 2, 8.

Moreover, even assuming Plaintiff meets the financial criteria to proceed IFP,

as the Prior Order explained, the Complaint, even liberally construed, is deficient and

does not comply with Rules 8 and 10. Id. at 4-6 & n.3.3 For example, the Complaint is

but “need not apply this rule to legal conclusions.” Anthony v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 626 F.3d 1318,

1321 (11th Cir. 2010).

2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent; however, they may be cited when

persuasive on a particular point. See United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1289-90 (11th Cir. 2000);

11th Cir. R. 36-2.

3 Rules 8 and 10 “work together to require the pleader to present his claims discretely and

succinctly[.]” Palmer v. Albertson’s LLC, 418 F. App’x 885, 889 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). A

complaint that violates Rule 8(a), Rule 10(b), or both, may be described as a “shotgun” pleading. See

Mathis v. City of Lakeland, No. 22-12426, 2023 WL 2568814, at *4 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2023). “Shotgun”

the “quintessential ‘shotgun’” pleading as it “contains several counts, each one

incorporating by reference the allegations of its predecessors, leading to a situation

where most of the counts (i.e., all but the first) contain irrelevant factual allegations

and legal conclusions.” Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305

F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Crosby v. Fla., No. 3:22-cv-67-MMH-LLL,

2022 WL 195312, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2022). The Complaint also improperly

lumps together various allegations against multiple defendants without clarifying the

alleged actions or inactions of each. See Mathis v. City of Lakeland, No. 22-12426, 2023

WL 2568814, at *4 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2023) (“The lumping of defendants does not

give any defendant fair notice of the allegations brought against that defendant.”).4

The Prior Order thus directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint curing the

deficiencies identified in, and consistent with the instructions in, the Prior Order. Doc.

3 at 4-9.5

pleadings are strictly prohibited. Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1356-58 (11th Cir. 2018);

see also Moore v. Jasper City Bd. of Educ., No. 22-13943, 2023 WL 3719151, at *2 (11th Cir. May 30,

2023). Complying with the rules of procedure includes not filing shotgun pleadings, and thus pro se

shotgun pleadings are also forbidden. See Brown v. Columbus Police Dep’t, No. 23-11896, 2024 WL

3451862, at *6-7 (11th Cir. July 18, 2024); see also Mikov v. Vill. of Palm Springs, Fla., No. 23-13311,

2024 WL 3178043, at *3 (11th Cir. June 26, 2024); Mathis, 2023 WL 2568814, at *4; LaCroix, 627 F.

App’x at 818-19. “It is not the district court’s job to parse out incomprehensible allegations from

shotgun pleadings”; rather, shotgun pleadings are subject to dismissal. Dvoinik v. Rolff, No. 23-14147,

2024 WL 2974475, at *4 (11th Cir. June 13, 2024); see also Owens v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue, No. 22-10550,

2023 WL 4105378, at *2-3 (11th Cir. June 21, 2023).

4 The Prior Order further explained that, to the extent discernable, the Complaint did not

appear to have adequately alleged a claim over which this Court has jurisdiction. Doc. 3 at 6-7. But

Plaintiff’s failure to correct the shotgun deficiencies in the Complaint or otherwise comply with the

directives in the Prior Order makes further discussion of these additional issues unnecessary.

5 The Prior Order did not purport to address all potential deficiencies in the Complaint. Nor

does this Report and Recommendation.

Notably, the Prior Order provided an opportunity to cure the identified

deficiencies, if possible, by directing Plaintiff to file an amended pleading and to pay

the filing fee or file an amended application to proceed IFP by December 23, 2025. Id.

at 1, 8-9. The Prior Order also expressly warned that a failure to do so would likely

result in a recommendation that the Application be denied and this case be dismissed

without prejudice. Id. at 8-9. However, Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or file an

amended application to proceed IFP, did not file an amended complaint, and did not

otherwise attempt to cure the deficiencies noted in the Prior Order. Therefore, the

undersigned recommends that the Application be denied and that this case be

dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that:

1. The Application (Doc. 2) be denied.

2. This case be dismissed without prejudice.

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to terminate any pending motions and

close the file.

Notice

“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of [a] recommended disposition,

a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A party may respond to another party’s

objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.” Id. A party’s failure to serve

and file specific objections to the proposed findings and recommendations impacts the

scope of review by a district judge and by an appellate court. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. “The district judge must determine

de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected

to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “A party failing to object

to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and

recommendation ... waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order

based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions|.]” 11th Cir. R. 3-1.

DONE AND ENTERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on January 14, 2026.

[Z J. Horovitz

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to:

The Honorable Jordan E. Pratt

Pro se Plaintiff