USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 1 of 9
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13943
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
MONISHA F. MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JASPER CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
WALKER WILSON,
in his individual capacity,
TERESA SHERER,
in her individual capacity,
MARY BETH BARBER,
in her individual capacity,
SCOTT THORNLEY,
in his individual capacity, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 2 of 9
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13943
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cv-01269-ACA
____________________
Before WILSON, LUCK, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Monisha Moore, represented by counsel during all
proceedings, appeals the district court’s order sua sponte
dismissing with prejudice her amended complaint as a shotgun
pleading. After review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2022, Moore filed an initial 28-page
complaint with 67 allegations against 10 defendants. Moore
alleged that the defendants discriminated against her because of her
race and age in violation of her constitutional and federal statutory
rights.
On October 6, 2022, the district court sua sponte struck
Moore’s complaint as a shotgun pleading. The district court found
that her complaint was a shotgun pleading because (1) each count
incorporated by reference all the previous allegations, and
USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 3 of 9
22-13943 Opinion of the Court 3
(2) certain allegations and counts failed to give the court or the
defendants adequate notice of the claims.
The district court allowed Moore to file an amended
complaint. The district court explained that (1) her amended
complaint must contain a separate count for each claim that
contained a factual basis for that claim only, and (2) each count’s
heading had to identify the specific defendant or defendants against
whom the claim was asserted, and the statute or law under which
the claim was brought. Lastly, the district court warned Moore
that if her amended complaint was also a shotgun pleading, the
district court would dismiss it “with prejudice without further
notice.”
On October 21, 2022, Moore filed a 25-page amended
complaint with 111 allegations and five substantive counts against
the same 10 defendants. 1
On October 31, 2022, the district court dismissed Moore’s
amended complaint with prejudice on shotgun pleading grounds.
First, the district court found that all her counts continued to
improperly incorporate by reference every previous allegation
contained in the amended complaint.
Second, the district court concluded that the headings and
allegations in counts 2, 3, and 4 were “inconsistent and ma[d]e it
difficult—if not impossible—for the defendants to determine
1The amended complaint lists six counts, but count 1 is titled “FACTS” and
does not assert a claim for relief.
USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 4 of 9
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13943
which and how many of them [were] subject to the claims asserted
in those counts.”
Third, the district court noted that count 5 attempted to
assert claims against the individual school board defendants in both
their individual and official capacities, but the amended
complaint’s caption and party allegations stated that they were
named only in their individual capacities. So the district court
concluded that the defendants did not have fair notice of the nature
of the claims asserted against them.
Fourth, the district court found that count 6’s reference to
“Defendants” generally did not specify which acts or omissions
were attributable to which defendant.
The district court noted that it already gave Moore—who
was represented by counsel—notice of the defects in the original
complaint and specific instructions on how to cure those defects.
The district court found “Moore made no meaningful effort to
correct the deficiencies,” so dismissal with prejudice was
appropriate.
Moore appealed. 2
2The defendants had not been served at the time of the dismissal, so they did
not participate in this appeal.
USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 5 of 9
22-13943 Opinion of the Court 5
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a dismissal on shotgun pleading grounds for an
abuse of discretion. Barmapov v. Amuial,
986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th
Cir. 2021).
III. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Moore argues that the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing her amended complaint with prejudice
because (1) her amended complaint was not a shotgun pleading
and (2) she should be allowed to amend her amended complaint
because there is no prejudice to the defendants since they have not
been served yet. Below, we review our relevant law on shotgun
pleadings and then explain why the district court did not abuse its
discretion.
A. General Rules on Shotgun Pleadings
A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates either
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or 10(b), or both. Weiland
v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off.,
792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015).
Rule 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2). Rule 10(b) requires a party to “state its claims or defenses
in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a
single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Rule 10(b) also
mandates that “each claim founded on a separate transaction or
occurrence . . . be stated in a separate count” if doing so would
promote clarity.
Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 6 of 9
6 Opinion of the Court 22-13943
“The self-evident purpose of these rules is to require the
pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly, so that his
adversary can discern what he is claiming and frame a responsive
pleading.” Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324 (cleaned up). In other
words, “shotgun pleadings are flatly forbidden by the spirit, if not
the letter, of these rules because they are calculated to confuse the
enemy and the court.” Id. (cleaned up). Accordingly, we have
“little tolerance” for shotgun pleadings. Id. (quotation marks
omitted).
“[W]e have identified four rough types or categories of
shotgun pleadings”: (1) “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”; (2) a
complaint that is “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial
facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action”;
(3) a complaint that does not separate “each cause of action or
claim for relief” into a different count; and (4) a complaint that
“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.” Weiland,
792 F.3d at 1321–23.
A district court must give a plaintiff one opportunity to
remedy her shotgun pleading before dismissing her action. Vibe
Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets,
878 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2018). But if
she files an amended complaint without substantially fixing the
USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 7 of 9
22-13943 Opinion of the Court 7
deficiencies, dismissal with prejudice is warranted. See Jackson v.
Bank of Am., N.A.,
898 F.3d 1348, 1358–59 (11th Cir. 2018)
(explaining that “[t]he [d]istrict [c]ourt should have dismissed the
amended complaint with prejudice” where “the [plaintiffs] filed an
amended complaint afflicted with the same defects, attempting
halfheartedly to cure only one of the pleading’s many ailments by
naming which counts pertained to each [d]efendant”).
B. No Abuse of Discretion
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
Moore’s amended complaint with prejudice. When the district
court struck Moore’s initial complaint on shotgun pleading
grounds, it (1) allowed Moore to file an amended complaint,
(2) explicitly told her how to cure the pleading deficiencies, and
(3) warned her that failure to fix the issues would result in dismissal
of the amended complaint “with prejudice without further
notice.” Despite these instructions and warning, Moore filed an
amended complaint without substantially remedying the pleading
issues.
Moore’s amended complaint was a quintessential shotgun
pleading for two reasons. First, each count incorporated by
reference the allegations of its predecessor counts, “leading to a
situation where most of the counts (i.e., all but the first) contain[ed]
irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions.” Strategic
Income Fund, LLC v. Spear, Leeds & Kello Corp.,
305 F.3d 1293, 1295
(11th Cir. 2002).
USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 8 of 9
8 Opinion of the Court 22-13943
Second, the headings and allegations indiscriminately
referred to singular and plural defendants, making it difficult to
ascertain which defendant or defendants were responsible for each
act or omission. In count 3, for example, the heading lists only
defendant Jasper City Board of Education, but the allegations
beneath that heading refer to “Defendant City of Jasper Board of
Education[] and the individual defendants,” “Defendant Rigsby,”
and “Defendants.”
In short, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing her amended complaint with prejudice because (1) it
provided Moore with fair notice of the defects in her original
complaint and a meaningful opportunity to fix them, yet
(2) Moore, who was represented by counsel, failed to remedy the
defects, and her amended complaint remained a shotgun pleading.
See Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1326 (“Barmapov was represented by
counsel, the district court dismissed his first amended complaint
after explaining why it was a shotgun pleading, and the court gave
him a chance to try again. Barmapov squandered that opportunity
by filing another shotgun pleading. Under this circumstance, we
have no doubt that the district court did not abuse its discretion” in
dismissing with prejudice.); Jackson,
898 F.3d at 1358 (“[T]he key is
whether the plaintiff had fair notice of the defects and a meaningful
chance to fix them. If that chance is afforded and the plaintiff fails
to remedy the defects, the district court does not abuse its
discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice on shotgun
pleading grounds.”).
USCA11 Case: 22-13943 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 05/30/2023 Page: 9 of 9
22-13943 Opinion of the Court 9
Further, the district court was not required to give Moore
any additional opportunities to remedy her pleading violations. See
Automotive Alignment & Body Serv., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.,
953 F.3d 707, 732 (11th Cir. 2020) (“[A] district court is required to
give a counseled plaintiff only one chance to replead before
dismissing a complaint with prejudice on shotgun-pleading
grounds[.]”); Vibe Micro,
878 F.3d at 1296 (explaining that “the
district court was not required to sua sponte give [the plaintiff] any
additional chances to remedy” the shotgun pleading issues where
it had already given him a chance to amend his complaint to cure
the deficiencies and “provided him with a veritable instruction
manual on how to do so”).
C. Less Severe Sanctions Argument
Moore also argues that the district court abused its
discretion by failing to consider less severe sanctions. Moore cites
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which authorizes a court to
dismiss a party’s complaint for failure to prosecute or comply with
a court order, and cases explaining that a dismissal under Rule 41(b)
is an extreme sanction that may be imposed only when, inter alia,
the district court specifically finds that lesser sanctions would not
suffice. That law is inapplicable here because the district court
dismissed Moore’s amended complaint on shotgun pleading
grounds, not because she failed to prosecute her case or failed to
comply with a district court order.
AFFIRMED.
