Altidor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

PRINCEO LAQUINTON ALTIDOR, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:26-cv-16-MMH-MCR

NURSE CONNIE MCCALL, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________________

ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections, initiated

this case pro se by filing a Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 1) against nine

Defendants based on conduct that occurred at Union Correctional Institution.

He is proceeding in forma pauperis. See Order (Doc. 10). The discrete claims

against each Defendant are unclear, but Plaintiff’s main contention is that

officers and medical providers knew he had chronic asthma that prohibited the

use of chemical agents against him, but they manipulated or ignored his

medical records to spray him. See Doc. 1 at 7–8.

Plaintiff alleges that, on December 29, 2022, Defendant Nurse McCall

was contacted by officers (perhaps Defendants Cotton, Bene-Rios, and Dean)

asking whether Plaintiff was cleared for the use of chemical agents. Id. at 8–9.

Knowing of Plaintiff’s chronic asthma and various medical passes, Defendant

McCall altered Plaintiff’s medical records and told the officers they could safely

use chemical agents to gain Plaintiff’s compliance. Id. at 10–11. Plaintiff

implies that Defendants Encarnacion, Deburou, Holm, Cotton, Dean, and

Bene-Rios “plot[ted]” with Defendant McCall to harm him. Id. at 11–12, 18.

Plaintiff also alleges Defendants Bene-Rios, Dean, and Deburou removed all

his property from his cell, including medical equipment (wheelchair, leg brace,

and air cast), “leaving [him] without any ability to move around freely” or use

the restroom. Id. at 13–14. He claims that when he received some of his

property back after three days, it was covered in tomato paste despite officers

knowing that he is allergic to tomatoes. Id. at 13. Plaintiff implies that

Defendants Cotton, Bene-Rios, Dean, and Deburou were motivated to harm

him because of a grievance he wrote shortly before the incident in which he

complained about being forced to shave his beard in violation of his right to

freely practice his religion. Id. at 16.

Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is deficient. The

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a plaintiff to provide “a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(2). All averments of the claim should be made “in numbered

paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). A plaintiff may set forth only related claims in one civil

2

rights complaint; he may not join unrelated claims and various defendants

unless the claims arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of

transactions or occurrences” and if “any question of law or fact common to all

defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). As recognized by

the Eleventh Circuit, “a claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence

if there is a ‘logical relationship’ between the claims.” Constr. Aggregates, Ltd.

v. Forest Commodities Corp., 147 F. 3d 1334, 1337 n.6 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting

Republic Health Corp. v. Lifemark Hosps. of Florida, Inc., 755 F.2d 1453, 1455

(11th Cir. 1985)).

To satisfy these minimal federal pleading standards, a plaintiff must

allege facts that, accepted as true, state a claim “that is plausible on its face.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The standard asks for less than a

probability but “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted

unlawfully.” Id. Though a plaintiff is not required to provide “detailed factual

allegations,” he must offer more than “naked assertion[s] devoid of further

factual enhancement.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A complaint

should provide enough detail to “give the defendant fair notice of what the

… claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original). One that does not is referred

3

to as a “shotgun pleading” and is prohibited. See Weiland v. Palm Bch. Cnty.

Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015).

The Eleventh Circuit has identified four categories of shotgun pleadings:

those in which a plaintiff incorporates all general factual allegations into each

successive count of a multi-count complaint; those that are “replete with

conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts”; those that do not separate the

different claims for relief into different counts; and those in which a plaintiff

“assert[s] multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying

which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions.” Id. at

1322–23. Shotgun pleadings are prohibited because they require courts to sift

through rambling allegations to “separate the meritorious [claims] from the

unmeritorious ones, resulting in a massive waste of judicial and private

resources.” PVC Windoors, Inc. v. Babbitbay Beach Const., N.V., 598 F.3d 802,

806 n.4 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff’s Complaint is a shotgun pleading: Plaintiff incorporates all

factual allegations into his single statement of “legal claims”; the Complaint is

“replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts”; Plaintiff does not

separate the different claims for relief into different counts; and Plaintiff

“assert[s] multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying

4

which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions.” See

Weiland, 792 F.3d at1322–23.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s allegations are not short and plain. Most facts he

includes in one paragraph that spans sixteen pages, and he similarly sets forth

his “legal claims” in a single paragraph, see Doc. 1 at 4–20, 22, “amount[ing] to

an amalgamation” of all claims he seeks to pursue. See PVC Windoors, Inc.,

598 F.3d at 806. For instance, in his statement of “legal claims,” Plaintiff

identifies numerous alleged violations, including deliberate indifference,

excessive force, denial of equal protection, denial of his right to practice his

religion, deprivation of property, and retaliation, but he does not say which

claim he pursues against which Defendant or on what grounds. See Doc. 1 at

22.

Although pro se plaintiffs are held to a less stringent standard than

attorneys, they still must comply with pleading rules. Plaintiff’s Complaint

would require the Court to expend scarce judicial resources to sift through the

rambling allegations to separate potentially plausible claims from frivolous

ones. The Court will not undertake such a task. See Barmapov v. Amuial, 986

F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 2021) (Tjoflat, J., concurring) (“[D]istrict courts are

flatly forbidden from scouring shotgun complaints to craft a potentially viable

claim for a plaintiff.”).

5

If Plaintiff wants to proceed, he must file an amended complaint in

compliance with federal pleading standards. Plaintiff should avoid stating his

allegations in essay or diary format, but rather he should state his allegations

plainly in separately numbered paragraphs, each limited to a single set of

circumstances. He should omit irrelevant or extraneous facts and identify each

claim he seeks to pursue against each Defendant, clearly and plainly

explaining the factual allegations supporting each claim. Vague and conclusory

allegations or the use of legal “buzzwords” without explanation is insufficient

to state a claim under § 1983. In addition to complying with federal pleading

standards, Plaintiff must keep in mind the following legal principles.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the

conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state

law, and the conduct deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured

by the Constitution or laws of the United States. A plausible deliberate

indifference claim requires allegations that, accepted as true, would permit the

reasonable inference the defendant knew the plaintiff faced “a substantial risk

of serious harm” but acted with “subjective recklessness as used in the criminal

law.” Wade v. McDade, 106 F.4th 1251, 1261–62 (11th Cir. 2024) (en banc).

“[D]eliberate indifference describes a state of mind more blameworthy than

negligence.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994).

6

A negligent or intentional deprivation of personal property does not

constitute a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation “if a meaningful

postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S.

517, 533 (1984); see also Case v. Eslinger, 555 F.3d 1317, 1331 (11th Cir. 2009)

(recognizing Florida’s civil cause of action for conversion provides an adequate

postdeprivation remedy when law enforcement officers seize or retain personal

property).

Liability under § 1983 may not be based on a theory of vicarious liability.

Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003), abrogated in part on

other grounds by Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010). In other

words, a claim under § 1983 must be based on something more than the fact

that a supervisor employed an individual who violated the plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. A claim against a supervisor arises only “when the

supervisor personally participates in the alleged constitutional violation or

when there is a causal connection between actions of the supervising official

and the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667,

671 (11th Cir. 1990). Absent direct involvement by a supervisor, the requisite

causal connection “can be established when a history of widespread abuse puts

the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged

deprivation, and he fails to do so.” See id.; Cottone, 326 F.3d at 1360. A plaintiff

7

relying on a history-of-widespread-abuse theory must demonstrate the past

deprivations were “obvious, flagrant, rampant and of continued duration,” such

that the supervising official was on notice of the need to take corrective action.

See Brown, 906 F.2d at 671.

If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he should use the Court-approved civil

rights complaint form, adhering to the following instructions:

1. The complaint must be marked, “Amended Complaint.”

2. The complaint must name as Defendants only those who had been

acting under color of state law and are responsible for an alleged

constitutional violation.

3. The complaint must state the full name and address (i.e., work

location) of each Defendant (to the extent known) in the style of

the case on the first page and in section I.B.

4. The list of Defendants named on the first page must match the list

in section I.B.

5. In section IV, “Statement of Claim,” there must be a clear

description of how each Defendant was involved in an alleged

violation. The allegations should be stated in numbered

paragraphs, each limited to a single set of circumstances. Plaintiff

should separately explain the facts giving rise to his individual

claims for relief, and he should clearly state how each Defendant

is responsible for each alleged violation.1

6. In section V, “Injuries,” there must be a statement concerning how

each Defendant’s action(s) or omission(s) injured Plaintiff.

1 Plaintiff may attach additional pages, if necessary, but he should continue

to number the paragraphs for a clear presentation of his factual allegations

supporting each claim.

8

7. In section VI, “Relief,” there must be a statement of what Plaintiff

seeks through this action, keeping in mind that the Prison

Litigation Reform Act “places substantial restrictions on the

judicial relief that prisoners can seek . . . .” Brooks v. Warden, 800

F.3d 1295, 1307 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Al-Amin v. Smith, 637

F.3d 1192, 1195 (11th Cir. 2011)).

Plaintiff must sign and date the amended complaint after the following

statement on the form:

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing

below, I certify to the best of my knowledge,

information, and belief that this complaint: (1) is not

being presented for an improper purpose, such as to

harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly

increase the cost of litigation; (2) is supported by

existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for

extending, modifying, or reversing existing law; (3) the

factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if

specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary

support after a reasonable opportunity for further

investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint

otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 11.

Before signing the amended complaint, Plaintiff must ensure his assertions

are truthful and he has not knowingly made false material declarations. He

must neither exaggerate nor distort the facts but instead must truthfully state

the facts underlying his claims. Knowingly making a false material declaration

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both.

An amended complaint supersedes the filing of the initial complaint and

becomes the operative pleading. Krinsk v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 654 F.3d

1194, 1202 (11th Cir. 2011). Thus, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be

9

complete, including all claims he wishes to raise and must not refer back to his

original complaint.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form.

2. By May 15, 2026, Plaintiff must mail an amended complaint to

the Court for filing. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Order may

result in the dismissal of this case.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 15th day of April,

2026.

: MONTE C. RICHARDSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Jax-6

C: Princeo Laquinton Altidor, Sr.

10