David Timothy Johnson, Sr. v. Urvashi Foster, et al., No. 23-10452 (11th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 23-10452 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2023 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-10452 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ DAVID TIMOTHY JOHNSON, SR., Plainti -Appellant, versus URVASHI FOSTER, an individual, BILLIE JOE FOSTER, an individual, DEPUTY BROOKS, Badge # 203, Georgetown-Quitman County Sheri Department, an individual, GOD AND GOD ALONE LLC, a limited liability corporation, MAGISTRATE COURT OF GEORGETOWN-QUITMAN USCA11 Case: 23-10452 2 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 6 23-10452 COUNTY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 4:21-cv-00219-CDL ____________________ Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: David Johnson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint and denial of his two Rule 60 motions to vacate. The district court gave him a chance to le an amended complaint and instructions for how to cure his pleading de ciencies, but his amended complaint still fell short of the pleading requirements in federal court. For the reasons explained below, the district court was well within its discretion to dismiss his complaint with prejudice and Johnson has abandoned any challenge to the denial of his motions to vacate. We a rm. I. Johnson sued multiple private and government actors over what appears to be a landlord-tenant lawsuit in state court. He alleges he was mistreated by a state magistrate judge and USCA11 Case: 23-10452 23-10452 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 6 3 discriminated against based on his race, sex, religion, age, and disability. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and the district court held that Johnson’s complaint was a shotgun pleading that failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 10(b). The district court instructed Johnson how to cure his pleading de ciencies and gave him twenty-eight days to le an amended complaint. Johnson failed to cure those de ciencies, and the district court dismissed Johnson’s amended complaint because it again determined it was a shotgun pleading that violated Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b). It held that (1) the allegations were conclusory, vague, and contained immaterial facts that were not connected to a speci c cause of action, (2) the amended complaint failed to separate each cause of action into a di erent count and treated the defendants as a collective unit for the majority of the claims, and (3) Johnson made no e ort to clearly assert each claim, supported by allegations, against each defendant. Johnson then led two motions to vacate that judgment under Rule 60 due to his neglect, the district court’s lack of instructions to cure his pleading de ciencies, his health problems, and the defendants’ fraud, misrepresentation, and misconduct. The district court denied both motions because there was no excusable neglect, it previously provided su cient instructions to cure his pleading de ciencies, it accommodated his health problems by allowing him additional time for some lings, and he failed to identify any fraud, misconduct, or misrepresentation. He timely appealed. USCA11 Case: 23-10452 4 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 4 of 6 23-10452 II. We review dismissals of a complaint because it is a shotgun pleading for abuse of discretion. Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021). We also review a district court’s denial of a Rule 60 motion for abuse of discretion. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Nw. Nat’l Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 1332, 1338 (11th Cir. 1999). While we read briefs led by pro se litigants liberally, a pro se litigant is still “subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). III. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Johnson’s amended complaint as a shotgun pleading. A shotgun pleading fails “to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheri ’s O ., 792 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015). Shotgun pleadings “waste scarce judicial resources, inexorably broaden the scope of discovery, wreak havoc on appellate court dockets, and undermine the public’s respect for the courts.” Vibe Micro Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018). Characteristics of shotgun pleadings include (1) containing “multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts,” (2) being “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of USCA11 Case: 23-10452 23-10452 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 5 of 6 5 action,” (3) failing to separate “into a di erent count each cause of action or claim for relief,” and (4) 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.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321–23. Further, Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include a short and plain statement entitling the plainti to relief, and Rule 10(b) requires a complaint to state claims in separate, numbered paragraphs. We require district courts to allow a litigant one chance to remedy a shotgun pleading. Vibe, 878 F.3d at 1295. If a plainti fails to correct their de cient pleading after that notice, the district court is well within its discretion to dismiss the case. Id. Johnson has failed to establish the district court abused its discretion when it held that his amended complaint was a shotgun pleading. Johnson stated no facts to support his claims, failed to separate his claims into distinct counts, and treated all of the defendants as a collective unit for the majority of the claims. Plus, the district court had already given Johnson instructions on how to cure his pleading de ciencies and twenty-eight days to do so. A district court has the discretion to dismiss a complaint as a shotgun pleading, especially after notifying the plainti of the de ciencies and giving him an opportunity to cure them. Id. The district court did not abuse that discretion here. IV. We need not address the district court’s order denying Johnson’s motions to vacate because Johnson has abandoned any USCA11 Case: 23-10452 6 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 6 of 6 23-10452 challenge to that order on appeal. To avoid abandonment, a party must plainly identify the issues or claims that they seek to raise on appeal. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680–81 (11th Cir. 2014). A party abandons a claim on appeal when he fails to “plainly and prominently raise it, for instance by devoting a discrete section of his argument to those claims.” Id. at 681. We construe a pro se litigant’s briefs liberally, but an issue not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant is deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Johnson’s brief does not mention Rule 60 and makes no argument as to why the district court abused its discretion in denying his two motions to vacate. Even construing his brief liberally, we cannot nd that he briefed the issue on appeal. Thus, we need not address the merits of the district court’s denial of his motions to vacate. V. For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
