Rued

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

SCOTT DARYLL RUED; LEAH JEAN

RUED; JOSEPH DARYLL RUED on

behalf of W.O.R., minor

child,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 2:26-cv-01060-JES-NPM

SCOTT S. HARRIS, PIPA

FISHER, JOHN ROBERS,

CLARENCE THOMAS, SAMUEL

ALITO, SONYA SOTOMAYOR,

ELENA KEGAN, NEIL GORSUCH,

BRETT KAVANAUGH, AMY CONEY

BARRETT, KETANJI BROWN,

ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD

BLANCHE, GREGORY KEHOE, KASH

PATEL, DONALD TRUMP,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on review of the pro se

Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Doc. #1) filed on

April 7, 2026. Plaintiffs Scott and Leah Rued are in Bonita

Springs, Florida, while Joseph is located in Eden Praire,

Minnesota. Joseph Daryll Rued is appearing on behalf of a minor

child although the Complaint does not clearly state whether he is

the legal guardian, parent, or other authorized representative.

The 205-page Complaint presents a stream of consciousness of

unfiltered and disjointed thoughts and legal citations with causes

of action having no connection to the Middle District of Florida

other than the residence of plaintiffs. It would appear, one or

more of the plaintiffs sought to file documents with the United

States Supreme Court in 2023, on behalf of a minor, possibly

identifying the minor by name in the documents, and without

representation for appeals stemming from a decision by the 8th

Circuit Court of Appeals. The filings were rejected and returned

pursuant to a Supreme Court rule. (Doc. #1, pp. 121-125.) The

documents were eventually docketed. (Id. at 124-125.) Starting

in August 2025, similar issues arose for other filings causing

problems with critical deadlines. (Id. at 125, 133-134.)

Plaintiffs incorporate most of the preceding paragraphs on page

140, alleging that U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 9.1 does not apply to

plaintiffs and Scott Harris and Pipa Fisher’s rejection of a writ

of prohibition on the basis of the Rule was a violation of their

Fifth Amendment rights and a usurpation of judicial authority.

(Id. at 140-150.) Plaintiffs assert that the justices of the

Supreme Court violated the separation of powers by delegating such

authority to the Clerk. 150-152.) Plaintiffs assert that Todd

Blanche and Gregory Kehoe have a duty to support the Constitution,

id. at 153, 165-166, 167-168, as well as the President, the

Director of the FBI, the Attorney General of the United States,

and the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, id. at

154, 169-170. Plaintiffs challenge a federal statute. (Id. at

175-176.) Starting on page 186, plaintiffs list their causes of

action as (1) the unlawful application of U.S. Supreme Court Rules

in violation of the Constitution by Scott Harris and Pipa Fisher;

(2) the failure to train/supervise to comply with constitutional

requirements by the U.S. Supreme Court justices; (3) in their

individual capacities, the failure to exercise supervisory

authority over the actions of those identified in Counts I and II

by Todd Blanche and Gregory Kehoe; (4) in their official

capacities, the acts in Count III; and (5) “FCIAA1983” is

unconstitutional.

“A complaint is a shotgun pleading if it contains pervasive

conclusory and immaterial facts not obviously connected to a

specific claim or asserts multiple claims without specifying who

is responsible or which persons the claim is brought against. []

A shotgun pleading makes it virtually impossible to know which

allegations of fact are intended to support which claims for

relief.” Brown v. Columbus Police Dep’t, No. 23-11896, 2024 WL

3451862, at *6 (11th Cir. July 18, 2024). “Shotgun pleadings,

whether filed by plaintiffs or defendants, exact an intolerable

toll on the trial court's docket, lead to unnecessary and

unchannelled discovery, and impose unwarranted expense on the

litigants, the court and the court's parajudicial personnel and

resources. Moreover, justice is delayed for the litigants who are

‘standing in line,’ waiting for their cases to be heard.” Cramer

v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997).

There are four types of shotgun pleadings: (1) a complaint

with multiple counts where each count adopts all preceding counts

“causing each successive count to carry all that came before and

the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint”; (2)

“a complaint that … is guilty of the venial sin of being replete

with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously

connected to any particular cause of action”; (3) a complaint that

fails to separate into separate counts each claim for relief; and

(4) “there is the relatively rare sin of asserting 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, 1321–23 (11th Cir.

2015).

The cumbersome Complaint contains conclusory, vague, and

broad statements that fail to connect to a particular defendant or

a particular cause of action. In sum, the complaint violates

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. Rule 8 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint include a “short

and plain statement of the claim” with “simple, concise, and

direct” allegations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1). Rule 10 of

the Federal Rules further provides that claims must be in numbered

paragraphs and “[i]f doing so would promote clarity, each claim

founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be

stated in a separate count[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Pro se

complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers. Nevertheless, pro se litigants are

not exempt from complying with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, including Rule 8(a)(2)’s pleading standard. GJR

Investments, Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th

Cir. 1998) (“Yet even in the case of pro se litigants 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[.]” (internal citations omitted)), overruled

on other grounds as recognized in Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701,

706 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837

(11th Cir. 1989) (stating that pro se litigants are “subject to

the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure”). As currently presented, the Complaint does

not contain a short or plain statement of the causes of action.

Therefore, the Complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend.

In amending, plaintiffs should endeavor to comply with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 8(a),

A pleading that states a claim for relief must

contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds

for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court

already has jurisdiction and the claim needs

no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may

include relief in the alternative or different

types of relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Under Rule 10(b),

A party must state its claims or defenses in

numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as

practicable to a single set of circumstances.

A later pleading may refer by number to a

paragraph in an earlier pleading. If doing so

would promote clarity, each claim founded on

a separate transaction or occurrence--and each

defense other than a denial--must be stated in

a separate count or defense.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiffs should specify the Court’s basis

for subject matter jurisdiction, and the legal basis for claims

with supporting facts as to each claim. Plaintiffs should include

references to the federal laws and/or sections of the United States

Constitution that have been violated for each defendant and that

are actionable. For additional resources and assistance,

plaintiff may wish to review the form complaints available on the

Court’s website, for example https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-

se-forms/complaint-violation-civil-rights-non-prisoner.!

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

The Complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed without prejudice as a

shotgun pleading. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within

THIRTY (30) DAYS of this Opinion ad Order. If no amended complaint

is filed, the case will be closed without further notice or order.

DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 20th day of

April 2026.

E. STEELE

SHNIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies:

Plaintiffs

1 The website has tips, answers to frequently-asked questions,

and sample forms. There is also a link that may help plaintiff

generate the amended complaint.