Friedmann

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

MICHAEL FRIEDMANN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 6:25-cv-2343-CEM-NWH

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

ATTORNEYS GENERAL,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Michael Friedmann’s

Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2, the “Motion”). For the reasons set forth

below, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court deny the Motion and

dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

In this action, Plaintiff sues Defendant National Association of Attorneys

General (“Defendant” or “NAAG”) “to enforce public records laws and to remedy

[Defendant’s] unlawful refusal” to disclose records that Plaintiff “properly requested

on or about March 20, 2025.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 1). Plaintiff alleges that he “seeks to vindicate

his right to access government records, a right protected by federal and state

transparency statutes and by the Florida Constitution.” (Id.).

Plaintiff further states that he “is the sole owner of Fallen Hero Bracelets, LLC,

a charitable organization that became the subject of a multi-state enforcement initiative

known as ‘Operation Donate with Honor’ in 2018.” (Id., ¶ 2). Regarding NAAG,

Plaintiff explains:

Defendant . . . is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization incorporated in the

District of Columbia[.] . . . NAAG describes itself as “the nonpartisan

national forum for Americas state and territory attorneys general,” providing

“collaboration, insight, and expertise to empower and champion

America’s attorneys general.” NAAG’s membership is composed of the

Attorneys General of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S.

territories, and NAAG serves as a vehicle through which these public

officials coordinate on investigations, enforcement actions, and policy

initiatives that span multiple jurisdictions. At all times relevant, NAAG

was acting as an agent for or in concert with state Attorneys General -

including Florida’s Attorney General - in activities related to Plaintiff and

Fallen Hero Bracelets, such as Operation Donate with Honor. As such,

NAAG is subject to public records laws to the same extent as any entity

acting on behalf of state officials in conducting the public’s business.

NAAG is sued in its capacity as a legal entity responsible for responding

to public records requests and for maintaining the records at issue.

(Id., ¶ 8).

Plaintiff includes two counts in his Complaint: Count I for “Declaratory

Judgment (Violation of Public Records Laws)” and Count II for “Injunctive Relief

(Compel Disclosure of Public Records).” (Id., ¶¶ 18-29). Plaintiff appears to plead

these counts pursuant to “the Freedom of Information Act (‘FOIA’), 5 U.S.C. § 552[;]

the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (as enforced via 42

U.S.C. § 1983)”[;] Florida’s Public Records Act, Fla. Stat. § 119; and the Florida

Constitution. (See id., ¶¶ 4, 20-22).

LEGAL STANDARD

A plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis if the plaintiff declares in an affidavit

that he or she is “unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1). Before a plaintiff is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is

obligated to review the complaint to determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, “fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against

a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915(e)(2). If the complaint is

deficient, the Court is required to dismiss the lawsuit sua sponte. See id.

The United States Supreme Court has observed that “a litigant whose filing fees

and court costs are assumed by the public . . . lacks an economic incentive to refrain

from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.

319, 324 (1989). However, the Supreme Court has cautioned that a case should only

be dismissed as frivolous if it relies on meritless legal theories or facts that are clearly

baseless. See id. at 327. If a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, a pro

se plaintiff should be given at least one chance to amend the complaint before the Court

may dismiss it with prejudice. Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001).

To state a claim, a plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the basis

of the Court’s jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief, and a demand for relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although district courts apply a “less stringent standard” to

pleadings submitted by pro se plaintiffs, they must still comply with the procedural rules

and allege the essential elements of their claims for relief. See Tannenbaum v. United

States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113

(1993); Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 787 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2015).

DISCUSSION

On review of Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), it seems

likely that Plaintiff qualifies as a pauper pursuant to § 1915(a)(1). Regardless of

whether Plaintiff qualifies financially, however, the undersigned concludes that his

Complaint is due to be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2) based on the deficiencies

identified below.

First, Plaintiff’s Complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading. Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain

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

8(a)(2). This standard “does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands

more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft,

556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (internal quotation marks omitted).

To state a plausible claim for relief, the plaintiff must go beyond merely pleading the

“sheer possibility” of unlawful activity by a defendant. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S.

at 556).

“A ‘shotgun pleading’ is one that lacks the minimum clarity, brevity, or

coherence required by Rules 8 and 10[.]” Lozano v. Prummell, No. 2:22-cv-600-JES-

KCD, 2022 WL 4384176, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2022). Stated another way, a

shotgun pleading fails “to one degree or another, and in one way or another, to give

the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which

each claim rests.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th

Cir. 2015).

“Shotgun pleadings wreak havoc on the judicial system” and “divert already

stretched judicial resources into disputes that are not structurally prepared to use those

resources efficiently.” Wagner v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273, 1279 (11th Cir.

2006) (citation, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). Consequently, they

are “altogether unacceptable.” Cramer v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir.

1997) (collecting cases).

The Eleventh Circuit has defined four types of shotgun pleadings. “The most

common type—by a long shot—is a complaint containing multiple counts where each

count adopts the allegations of 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.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321. The second most common type is 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.” Id. at 1321–22. “The

third type of shotgun pleading is one that commits the sin of not separating into a

different count each cause of action or claim for relief.” Id. at 1322–23. “Fourth, and

finally, 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.” Id. at 1323.

The Amended Complaint is a shotgun pleading in the first and third respects.

As an initial matter, it contains two counts, with the second count adopting all of the

allegations in the first count. (See Doc. 1, ¶¶ 18, 24). More importantly though, Plaintiff

fails to include each claim for relief in a separate count. (See id., ¶¶ 18-29). Instead, he

improperly lumps together multiple claims—brought pursuant to FOIA, the First and

Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Florida’s Public Records Act (Fla.

Stat. § 119), and the Florida Constitution—into two “counts.”

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he should include each statutory or

constitutional claim in its own count. The undersigned advises Plaintiff that any

amended complaint should also contain: (1) numbered paragraphs, with every

paragraph limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances; (2) separate

counts for each legal claim, which identify the elements of the claim and against whom

relief is being sought; and (3) factual allegations that relate to a specifically identified

cause of action and the elements thereof. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 10. Failure to timely

file an amended complaint or to comply with these instructions may result in the

dismissal of this action.

However, to the extent Plaintiff intends to replead a FOIA claim against

NAAG, he cannot do so. As the Eleventh Circuit has explained:

Apart from exemptions not relevant here, FOIA requires federal agencies

to make their records available to the public upon request. See generally 5

U.S.C. § 552; see also Sikes v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 896 F.3d 1227, 1233 (11th

Cir. 2018). FOIA defines an “agency” as “each authority of the

Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject

to review by another agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). This includes “any

executive department, military department, Government corporation,

Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the

executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of

the President), or any independent regulatory agency.” Id. § 552(f)(1).

Congress, however, is specifically excluded. Id. § 551(1)(A).

Statton v. Fla. Fed. Jud. Nominating Comm., 959 F.3d 1061, 1063 (11th Cir. 2020).

Simply put, NAAG is not a federal agency—nor does it appear that a federal agency

exercises supervision over NAAG or that it otherwise “exists in the Executive

Branch.” See id. Consequently, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff may not replead a

FOIA claim in this action.

Last, it is worth noting that pro se litigants are subject to the same law and rules

of court as litigants who are represented by counsel, including the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Florida. Before filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff should consider the

resources available to pro se litigants.

Specifically, the Middle District of Florida has published a Guide for

Proceeding Without a Lawyer, and the Orlando Chapter of the Federal Bar

Association operates a Legal Information Program. Through that program, pro se

litigants may meet with a lawyer for free to ask general questions about procedures

governing cases in federal court. Virtual and in-person appointments are available

every Tuesday from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. To request an appointment, pro se

litigants may visit https://outlook.office365.com/owa/calendar/Federal

LegalInformationClinicPublicRegistration@clsmf.org/bookings/. For assistance

making an appointment, call the Clerk’s Office at (407) 835-4200 or visit the Clerk’s

Office check-in window.1 A brochure with more information about the program is

available on the Court's website, www.flmd.uscourts.gov/legal-information-

program.2

RECOMMENDATION

In short, the undersigned concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is due to

be dismissed without prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading and that Plaintiff

may not replead a FOIA claim against NAAG because the non-profit organization has

no ties to a federal agency or the Executive Branch.

Accordingly, the undersigned RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDS that the

Court:

1. DENY without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. 2);

2. DISMISS the Complaint (Doc. 1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

3. PERMIT Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, within a timeframe established

by the Court, along with a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(provided he has a good faith basis to do so); and

1 The Clerk’s Office is located on the First Floor of the George C. Young Federal Annex

Courthouse, 401 West Central Boulevard, Orlando, Florida 32801.

2 The Local Rules and Guide for Proceeding Without a Lawyer are also available on the

Court’s website.

4. ADVISE Plaintiff that failing to timely file an amended complaint by the

established date or to comply with the Court’s instructions could result in the

closure of this case without further notice.

NOTICE TO PARTIES

The party has fourteen days from the date the party is served a copy of this

report to file written objections to this report’s proposed findings and

recommendations or to seek an extension of the fourteen-day deadline to file written

objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A party’s failure to file written objections waives

that party’s right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual finding or legal

conclusion the district judge adopts from the Report and Recommendation. See 11th

Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Recommended in Orlando, Florida on May 15, 2026.

NATHAN w HILL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Presiding District Judge

Counsel of Record

Unrepresented Parties