Burnett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

TANEAH BURNETT,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.

6:26-cv-721-CEM-RMN

ORANGE COUNTY

MEDICAL CLINIC

PHARMACY,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Taneah Burnett, proceeding , filed a Complaint against the

Orlando Police Department and Officer Gabriel Tineo. Dkt. 1.1

Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed (“IFP

Motion”, Dkt. 2). Considering the standards the Court must apply and

the allegations in the Complaint, I respectfully recommend denying the

IFP Motion, dismissing the Complaint, and providing Plaintiff with

another opportunity to plead her claims.

1 On the same day, Plaintiff filed case No. 6:26-cv-719-JSS-RMN

against the Orlando Police Department and Office Gabriel Tineo and

case No. 6:26-cv-720-AGM-RMN against the same defendants.

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

e Court must conduct a two-step inquiry when a plaintiff files

a complaint and seeks leave to proceed . First, the

Court must evaluate a plaintiff’s financial status and determine whether

he or she is eligible to proceed . 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1). Second, once the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff is a

pauper, the Court must review the complaint under section 1915(e)(2)

and dismiss the complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to

state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. .

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii). A complaint is frivolous under section

1915(e)(2)(B) if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”

, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted, the allegations must show plausibility.

, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007). “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.” , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation

omitted). “readbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” .

A complaint should be construed leniently, but a court

does not have “license . . . to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading [by

a pro se litigant] in order to sustain an action.”

, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). Moreover, a

litigant “is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” , 863 F.2d

835, 837 (11th Cir.), , 493 U.S. 863 (1989). If the

complaint is deficient, the court must dismiss the lawsuit. , 490

U.S. at 324.

II. ANALYSIS

First, I consider whether Plaintiff qualifies as a pauper and then

I discuss the adequacy of the Complaint.

A. Financial Information

When considering an IFP Motion, the Court must assess

whether the statements in the IFP application or accompanying

declaration satisfy the requirements of poverty.

, 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting

, 525 F.2d 886, 891 (5th Cir. 1976)). e Court does this by

comparing the applicant’s assets, income, and liabilities. , . at

1307–08 (“the district court was unable to compare Martinez’s assets

with her liabilities in order to determine whether she satisfied the

poverty requirement”).

After a careful review, I find that Plaintiff has not provided

enough information to determine if she is able to pay the costs of this

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ough Plaintiff did provide

a document purporting to be an “application to proceed in district court

without prepaying fees or costs,” Plaintiff did not submit the proper

long form Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying

Fees or Costs.2 us, the Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff

qualifies as a pauper. Dkt. 2. For this reason alone, the Court should

deny the application.

B. Adequacy of the Complaint

e generic “Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-

Prisoner)” form Plaintiff utilizes as her Complaint purports to bring a

section 1983 claim against the named Defendants.3

Dkt. 1. is Report discusses each ground for dismissal of Plaintiff’s

Complaint and recommends the Court grant leave to file an amended

complaint.

1. Shotgun Pleading

e Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly condemned shotgun

pleadings. In fact, the Eleventh Circuit has acknowledged its “thirty-

2 e long form Application to Proceed in District Court without

Prepaying Fees or Costs can be found on the Court’s website, at

www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ao239_1.pdf.

3 It is unclear from the face of the Complaint whether Plaintiff intends

to sue the officer who released her from the medical clinic, or the

medical clinic itself. Dkt. 1 at 2. erefore, this Report will treat

Plaintiff’s Complaint as if she brought the claims against both

defendants.

year salvo of criticism aimed at shotgun pleadings” and identified four

categories. , 792 F.3d

1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff’s Complaint fits squarely

into at least three of the categories identified as it is “replete with

conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any

particular cause of action”; it is “one that commits the sin of not

separating into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief”;

and it “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.”

In other words, the Complaint does not properly list causes of

action and lumps the alleged wrongful conduct—to the extent any is

alleged—onto both named Defendants. erefore, the Complaint fails

to separate into different counts the various claims asserted, depriving

Defendants of “adequate notice of the claims” asserted and the grounds

supporting each claim. at 1323. As a result, the Court and the

Defendants face the onerous and likely hopeless task of sifting through

the Complaint to determine which facts are relevant to what causes of

action. is manner of pleading contravenes the mandate of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) that pleadings contain “short and plain”

statements “showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” for the asserted

claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Because the Complaint is a prohibited shotgun pleading, the

Court should require Plaintiff to replead. , 117

F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997). If Plaintiff chooses to replead, her

amended complaint must clearly identify each separate claim for relief

and must clearly delineate factual allegations and legal basis relevant to

each claim and each defendant.

2. Section 1983 Claims

Although I recommend the Court dismiss the Complaint as a

shotgun pleading, this Report will discuss the alleged claims on the

merits as well.

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

that (1) the defendant deprived [her] of a right secured under the

United States Constitution or federal law and (2) such deprivation

occurred under color of state law.” , 598 F.3d

734, 737 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (citations omitted). “More than

conclusory and vague allegations are required to state a cause of action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” ., No. 3:12-cv-

436, 2012 WL 1413163, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2012) (citing

, 49 F.3d 679, 684 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam);

, 739 F.2d 553, 556–57 (11th Cir. 1984)). “[I]n

the absence of a federal constitutional deprivation or violation of a

federal right, Plaintiff cannot sustain a cause of action against the

Defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” I will address the § 1983

claims made against each Defendant in turn.

a. Releasing Officer, Orange County Medical

Clinic

Although we do not know the name of the defendant,4 Plaintiff

purports to bring a Section 1983 claim against the “releasing officer” of

the Orange County Medical Clinic. Dkt. 1 at 2. Plaintiff checks the

box for suing in their “individual capacity.”

Liberally read, the Complaint fails to state a plausible

section 1983 claim against any possibly named defendant officer. e

Complaint lacks factual allegations that would allow the Court to draw

reasonable inferences that an officer violated Plaintiff’s constitutional

rights. e Complaint, in light most favorable to Plaintiff and to the

4 As a general rule, “fictitious party pleading is not permitted in federal

court.” , 598 F.3d 734, 738 (11th Cir. 2010)

(per curiam). e one exception to this rule is when a plaintiff's

description of a defendant is so specific that the party may be identified

for service even though his actual name is unknown. .

(citing , 951 F.2d 1201, 1215–16 (11th Cir. 1992));

, 808 F. App'x 872, 880–81 (11th Cir. 2020) (per

curiam) (observing that “our precedent has never permitted John Doe

pleading solely on the ground that discovery might reveal an unnamed

defendant's identity” and instead requires “an unambiguous description

of a defendant that enables service of process”). Because Plaintiff cannot

specifically name a defendant, this may be another reason to dismiss the

complaint.

extent it is understood, merely alleges that some unnamed person

possibly forged Plaintiff’s signature and then denied her medicine for

an unspecified reason or prescription on her “day of release” from

custody. Dkt. 1 at 3. It is unclear whether Plaintiff alleges that she was

in custody the Orange County Medical Clinic or that the clinic

somehow violated her constitutional rights when she was released from

custody from Orange County corrections. It is also equally unclear

whether the unnamed defendant is an officer who works for Orange

County corrections or the clinic itself.

A “plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of [her]

entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”

, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotations omitted);

, 372 F.3d 1250, 1260 (11th Cir.

2004) (explaining that “conclusory allegations, unwarranted

deductions of facts or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not

prevent dismissal” (original alteration omitted)). In fact, “the tenant

that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a

complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions[,]” which simply “are not

entitled to [an] assumption of truth.” , 556 U.S. 662 at 678, 680.

In the absence of well-pled facts suggesting a federal constitutional

deprivation or violation of a federal right, Plaintiff cannot sustain a

cause of action against any officer in their individual capacity, even if

one could be named. Because the Compliant lacks facts sufficient to

support a Section 1983 claim, the Court should dismiss the claims

against “Releasing Officer, Orange County Medical Clinic Pharmacy”

in their individual capacity.

b. Orange County Medical Clinic

Although it is unclear, it appears that Plaintiff may have

attempted to bring a Section 1983 claim against Orange County

Medical Clinic itself.

Plaintiff does not allege that Orange County Medical Clinic is a

state actor or that it “acted under color of state law.” Dkt. 1. Besides

the mere conclusory allegation that the clinic “cause me leave [sic]

without inhaler, medicine and wheelchair led [sic] me life threatening

[sic] hypoionflated [sic] left lung and umbilical hernia without small

snack for diabetic type II and water [sic],” ( Dkt. 1 at 5), the

Complaint is devoid of any facts to legally support any claim against

this Defendant. In the absence of well-pled facts suggesting that the

Defendant is a state actor or acted “under color of law,” and that it

violated a federal constitutional right, Plaintiff cannot sustain a cause of

action against Defendant Orange County Medical Clinic. e Court

should dismiss the claims against it.

C. Resources for Litigants Without Lawyers

Additionally, Plaintiff may visit the Court’s website

(www.flmd.uscourts.gov) for resources for unrepresented litigants,

including a form for a civil complaint and a

. Plaintiff may also get a copy of the at the

clerk’s office. In addition, the Orlando Chapter of the Federal Bar

Association operates a Legal Information Program that affords litigants

proceeding in federal court without lawyers an opportunity to meet

with lawyers to ask general questions about procedures governing cases

in federal court. More information about the program, including

instructions about how to schedule an appointment, is available on the

Court’s website at https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/legal-information-

program.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, I respectfully RECOMMEND the Court:

1. DENY Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed

(Dkt. 2);

2. DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint

(Dkt. 1) and with leave to file an amended complaint that comports

with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, complies

with the requirements of this Court’s Local Rules, and corrects the

deficiencies identified in this Report; and

3. ORDER Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and

amended motion to proceed no later than 21 days

after the issuance of an order adopting these recommendations.

Notice to Parties

“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of [a report and

recommendation], 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.” /d. A party’s failure to serve

and file specific objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations alters review by the district judge and the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, including waiver of

the right to challenge anything to which no specific objection was made.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 11th

Cir. R. 3-1.

ENTERED in Orlando, Florida, on April 8, 2026.

ROBERT M. NORWAY

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to:

Hon. Carlos E. Mendoza

Taneah Burnett

P.O. Box 7327

Tallahassee, Florida 32314

-ll-