Our firm recently secured a victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s civil rights complaint against our client, a major supermarket chain.
The plaintiff had filed suit alleging a wide range of claims, including civil rights violations, negligence, contaminated and mislabeled food, and harassment based on race and national origin. The complaint named our client as well as a federal law enforcement agency.
The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice as an impermissible “shotgun pleading.” Shotgun pleadings violate federal rules requiring a plain statement of the claims and that each claim be stated in separate numbered paragraphs. The district court identified the complaint’s deficiencies, such as conclusory and immaterial allegations not tied to specific counts. It instructed the plaintiff on how to correct these issues in an amended pleading.
Rather than amend, the plaintiff appealed. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in dismissing the shotgun complaint. The complaint improperly commingled numerous causes of action in a single paragraph. By appealing prematurely instead of repleading, the plaintiff waived the opportunity to amend.
The decision underscores federal courts’ intolerance for shotgun pleadings that fail to give proper notice of the claims. Faced with such complaints, courts can dismiss sua sponte and direct a repleading. A plaintiff who appeals without fixing the defects risks losing the chance to pursue any claims. Proactive measures by defense counsel can take advantage of these principles to obtain early dismissal of improper complaints.
Michael Dono and Suzette Russomanno handled the appeal.