# Opinion

> District Court, M.D. Florida · January 14, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11326634

## Case

- **Full name:** Sheik Salaam El v. Auto Lounge of Florida, LLC, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** January 14, 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/11326634

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11326634. Public record. Not legal advice.