U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2024

Tamiko N. Peele v. The 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided March 13, 2024

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-10916 Document: 73-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 1 of 9

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-10916 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ TAMIKO N. PEELE, Individually on Behalf of Themselves, ROBERT L. WALKER, Individually on Behalf of Themselves, Plaintiﬀs-Appellants, versus THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, BROWARD COUNTY, FL, it's Court Registry Depository Funds of Federal Reserve Notes $180,030.00 U.S. Currency, it's Records Division Instrument numbers 117519100, 112300593, 115467945, USCA11 Case: 23-10916 Document: 73-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 2 of 9

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10916 113178049, DOES 1-3, inclusive in their individual and oﬃcial capacity, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, through its Social Security Administration Program, it's Cooperative Disability Investigations Program (CDI) and its Social Insurance Administrators Velma T. Blaine, James Peavy, Antonio Miguel Quinones, Brian Garber, DOES 1-11, inclusive and in their oﬃcial and individual capacity, THE FLORIDA BAR CLIENTS' SECURITY FUND, et al.,

Defendants-Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-14037-AMC ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Appellants Tamiko Peele and Robert Walker, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of their USCA11 Case: 23-10916 Document: 73-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 3 of 9

23-10916 Opinion of the Court 3 complaint without prejudice as an impermissible “shotgun” plead- ing. They also challenge, generally, the removal of their case to fed- eral court. Four of the appellees have moved for summary affir- mance. For the following reasons, we grant the appellees’ motions and affirm.

As a brief factual background, the appellants filed a state- court complaint against numerous defendants based on the after- math of an injury Walker allegedly suffered while employed by one of the defendants, the United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”). The ap- pellants, who filed for bankruptcy protection after the injury, blamed UPS and the other defendants—including, for example, the U.S. Social Security Administration (“SSA”), Liberty Mutual Insur- ance Company, the Florida Bar, Truist Bank, and several individu- als associated with these entities—for their alleged financial ruin.

The SSA removed the case to federal court. The appellants filed a notice objecting to the removal, but the filing provided no reasons why the case should be remanded.

Then, the district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice, concluding that the complaint was an imper- missible shotgun pleading that violated Federal Rules of Civil Pro- cedure 8(a)(2) and 10(b). The court gave the appellants the oppor- tunity to file an amended complaint and explained what defects in the complaint they would need to cure. The district court also no- tified the appellants of a procedure and deadline for seeking re- mand to the state court. In two separate orders issued between the USCA11 Case: 23-10916 Document: 73-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 4 of 9

4 Opinion of the Court 23-10916 dismissal order and the deadline to file an amended complaint, the district court reminded the appellants of the due date for the amended complaint. Rather than filing an amended complaint or seeking a remand, however, the appellants appealed, identifying as the order for review the district court’s order dismissing the com- plaint as a shotgun pleading. The district court then entered an or- der dismissing the action without prejudice based on the appel- lants’ failure to file an amended complaint; the appellants thereaf- ter amended their notice of appeal to include this order. Several of the defendants, now appellees, have filed motions for summary af- firmance.

II.

Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as in “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights de- nied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1161–62 (5th Cir. 1969). 1 We review the district court’s dismissal of a complaint on shotgun pleading grounds for an abuse of discretion. Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015).

1 Decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of busi- ness on September 30, 1981, are binding on this Court. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

USCA11 Case: 23-10916 Document: 73-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 5 of 9

23-10916 Opinion of the Court 5 We liberally construe pro se pleadings. Pinson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 942 F.3d 1200, 1206 (11th Cir. 2019). An appellant aban- dons an issue on appeal when she makes only passing references to it or raises it in a perfunctory manner without supporting argu- ments and authority. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridan Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680–81 (11th Cir. 2014). “[S]imply stating that an issue exists,” without providing reasoning and citation to authority upon which a party is relying, “constitutes abandonment of that issue.” Id. at 681 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The “United States or any agency thereof” may remove a civil action against it that a party has commenced in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). “[U]nder section 1442(a)(1), the district court may take the entire case, even if it would not have jurisdiction over any of the claims against a codefendant.” Williams v. City of Atlanta, 794 F.2d 624, 628 (11th Cir. 1986). After a case is removed, a motion to remand the case based on “any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” Id. A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim” showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Claims should be stated “in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “Shotgun” pleadings include complaints that: (1) contain multiple counts where each count adopts the USCA11 Case: 23-10916 Document: 73-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 6 of 9

6 Opinion of the Court 23-10916 allegations of all preceding counts; (2) are “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any partic- ular cause of action”; (3) do not separate each cause of action or claim for relief into separate counts; or (4) assert “multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the de- fendants are responsible for which acts or omissions.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321–23. All these types of shotgun pleadings are character- ized by their failure “to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323.

A district court may dismiss a complaint on shotgun plead- ing grounds under its “inherent authority to control its docket and ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits.” Vibe Micro Inc. v. Sha- banets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, in the case of a non-merits dismissal on shotgun pleading grounds, the district court is required to allow the plaintiff one chance to remedy the deficient pleading. Id. If the court permits the plaintiff to amend and explains in its repleading order how the offending complaint violates the shotgun pleading rule, but the plaintiff still fails to remedy the pleading’s defects, the court may in its discretion dismiss the case with prejudice. Id. at 1295–96. Regardless of what kind of defect the complaint suffers from, shotgun or otherwise, a plaintiff proceeding pro se must re- ceive at least one opportunity to amend the complaint if he might be able to state a claim by doing so. Woldeab v. Dekalb Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 1289, 1291–92 (11th Cir. 2018).

USCA11 Case: 23-10916 Document: 73-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 7 of 9

23-10916 Opinion of the Court 7 III.

We grant the appellees’ motions for summary aﬃrmance.

First, the case was properly removed to federal court. The SSA, as a federal agency named as a defendant, was within its statutory right to remove the case to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Alt- hough the appellants did not directly challenge on appeal the dis- trict court’s jurisdiction over the other defendants, we note that the district court also had ancillary jurisdiction over the other defend- ants by virtue of the SSA’s proper removal of the case. Williams, 794 F.2d at 628. The appellants ﬁled a joint notice objecting to the removal, but they did not identify any defect in the removal as re- quired by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), nor did one exist. Finally, the appel- lants have not raised any arguments as to the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction that would warrant a remand back to state court. Id. Thus, any challenge to the removal of the case from state to federal court is meritless.

Second, the appellants have abandoned any argument as to the dismissal of their complaint as an impermissible shotgun plead- ing. They make passing references to the concept of a “Shot Gun Pleading,” and they oﬀer the conclusory statement that the district court abused its discretion and violated their right to due process in dismissing their complaint. But they otherwise make no substan- tive argument to explain how their complaint was not in fact a shot- gun pleading. These sort of passing references, we have held, are insuﬃcient to preserve an issue for appeal. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681.

USCA11 Case: 23-10916 Document: 73-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 8 of 9

8 Opinion of the Court 23-10916 Even assuming for the sake of argument that the appellants have not abandoned the issue on appeal, on the merits, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint with- out prejudice as a shotgun pleading. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320. The complaint ﬁt two of the types of shotgun pleadings we previously have identiﬁed. It contained multiple counts that adopted the alle- gations of all preceding counts, and it asserted multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the de- fendants were responsible for which acts. Id. at 1321–23. [DE 1- 2:20–33.] Therefore, the district court was permitted to dismiss the complaint under its “inherent authority to control its docket and ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits.” Vibe Micro Inc., 878 F.3d at 1295 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court also correctly allowed the appellants an opportunity to replead, gave speciﬁc and detailed instructions on how to cure the deﬁciencies in the complaint, and gave multiple warnings as to when the amended complaint was due. Id. at 1295–96; Woldeab, 885 F.3d at 1291–92. The appellants failed to take the opportunity to replead by the given deadline. Instead, they chose to appeal the order dis- missing their initial complaint without prejudice, later amending their notice of appeal to include the district court’s order dismiss- ing the case for failure to meet the repleading deadline. In sum, the district court satisﬁed its obligations to the appellants and was within its discretion to dismiss the complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320.

Because the appellees’ positions are clearly right as a matter of law, we grant their motions for summary aﬃrmance.

USCA11 Case: 23-10916 Document: 73-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024 Page: 9 of 9

23-10916 Opinion of the Court 9 AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.