Fuoco v. U.S. Department of Army

Full title: JEFFREY J. DEL FUOCO, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT of the ARMY; PETE…

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

Date published: Sep 8, 2009

CASE NO: 8:09-cv-578-T-26EAJ (M.D. Fla. Sep. 8, 2009)

Opinion

CASE NO: 8:09-cv-578-T-26EAJ.

September 8, 2009

ORDER

RICHARD LAZZARA, District Judge

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's pro se amended complaint, thereby prompting this Court to examine its allegations.¹ In the Court's view, Plaintiff's amended complaint is the quintessential shotgun pleading that has been condemned on numerous occasions by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. See Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated, 516 F.3d 955, 979 n. 54 (11^th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases).² As in Strategic Income Fund, L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds Kellogg Corporation, 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11^th Cir. 2002), Plaintiff's amended complaint "contains several counts, each one incorporating by reference the allegations of its predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the counts (i.e., all but the first) contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions." Under these circumstances, the Court has the inherent authority, even if not requested by opposing counsel, to demand a repleader sua sponte. See Lumley v. City of Dade City, Fla., 327 F.3d 1186, 1192 n. 13 (11^th Cir. 2003) (suggesting that when faced with a shotgun pleading a district court, acting on its own initiative, should require a repleader); Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 n. 3 (11^th Cir. 2001) (noting that district courts confronted by shotgun complaints have the inherent authority to demand repleader sua sponte).

1 Because Plaintiff is an attorney, the Court is not obligated to examine his pleading with the same deference as one prepared by a pro se litigant who is not an attorney.

2 The Davis Court, speaking through Judge Tjoflat, also engaged in a thorough and extensive discussion of the havoc that such pleadings wreak on the judicial system, litigants, and the public at large. 516 F.3d at 979-84.

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1) Plaintiff shall replead his amended complaint within fifteen (15) days of this order. In doing so, Plaintiff should be mindful of the substantive arguments advanced by Defendants in support of dismissal.

2) Defendants shall file their response within fifteen (15) days of service.

3) The Motion to Dismiss or Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 12) is denied as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida.