Thomas v. Governor's Office For The State Of Ga.

1

LARRY THOMAS Plaintiff, v. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA, et al., Defendants.

No. 7:22-CV-00112 (WLS)

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Valdosta Division

February 13, 2024

ORDER

W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE

Before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Thomas's Motion to Leave to Admend [sic] Complaint (Doc. 59), Plaintiff's Second Motion to Leave to Admend [sic] Complaint (Doc. 77), and Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 31; 32; 40; 45; 53 57; 86; 87).

For reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motions to Leave to Admend [sic] Complaint (Docs. 59; 77) are DENIED, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 31; 32; 40; 45; 53; 57; 86; 87) are GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Accordingly, all other pending Motions (Docs. 13; 66; 73) are DISMISSED as moot.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff Thomas, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint (Doc. 1) against fifty-one (51) Defendants. The following day, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint. (Doc. 2). The Court denied the Motion to Amend (Doc. 2) without prejudice, in part, because the Complaint and the Amended Complaint were in shotgun form. (Doc. 7). In denying the Motion to Amend (Doc. 2) without prejudice, the Court noted that Plaintiff will be given another opportunity to file a motion to amend if he cures the deficiencies. (Doc. 7, at 3).

Subsequently Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 20). Within five days thereafter, he filed four (4) additional amended complaints (Docs. 23; 26; 29; 30). The Court entered an Order (Doc. 38) instructing all Parties that the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 20) was the operative Complaint, after determining that Plaintiff had amended his Complaint once as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1). (Doc. 38). Additionally, the Court also struck the four subsequent Complaints. (Id.) The Court notified Plaintiff that he may “not continue to file amended complaints with new claims, request for relief, and new defendants, without either obtaining a written consent from Defendants or obtaining permission for leave from the Court.” (Doc 38, at 6). The Order (Doc. 38) also provided a notice to Plaintiff on submitting a response to Defendants' pending motions to dismiss.

On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 59). Defendants filed their Responses in Opposition (Docs. 72; 74; 75). Specifically, the Defendants contend that amendment would be futile because Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaints fail to state a claim against them and because the Amended Complaints are impermissible shotgun pleadings that contain the same deficiencies as his operative Complaint (Doc. 20). (Docs. 72; 74; 75). To this, Plaintiff briefly contends that his amended complaint “has no defiencies [sic].” (Doc. 92).

Thereafter, on August 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Second Motion for Leave (Doc. 77). Defendants filed their Responses in Opposition (Docs. 79; 90; 95), arguing that Plaintiff's lack of attempt to cure any deficiencies demonstrates bad faith. (Doc. 90). Plaintiff filed a belated Reply (Doc. 93), merely stating that his amended complaint now has “417 claims” and has “added 14 [additional] defendants” and that he has “no dilatory motive.”

A total of eight Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 31; 32; 40; 45; 53; 57; 86; 87) have been filed by Defendants, who have been assembled into eight (8) groups. The Court provided Notice (Docs. 42; 49; 58; 88) to Plaintiff regarding these eight Motions to Dismiss by the Defendants and instructed Plaintiff that he had twenty-one days of the date of the Court's Notice to file his responses. Plaintiff filed belated Responses in Opposition (Docs. 80; 81; 83; 84; 96; 97), that only contain brief, conclusory statements.^[1] Although Plaintiff's Responses in Oppositions are untimely, the Court will nevertheless consider them.

The Court shall first address Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Amend Complaints and then turn to the eight (8) Motions to Dismiss filed by the Defendants.

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Amend Complaints

Under Rule 15(a)(2), “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave,”^[2] which “[t]he court should freely give … when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Unless a substantial reason exists to deny the motion, such as undue prejudice or delay, movant's bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, or futility, the interests of justice require that leave to amend be granted. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The grant or denial of an opportunity to amend a pleading is within the discretion of the district court. Id. Although liberal construction is given to the pleadings of pro se litigants, the Eleventh Circuit still requires pro se parties to conform to procedural rules. Mitchell v. Thompson, 564 Fed.Appx. 452, 456 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted). Here, upon review of Plaintiff's operative Complaint (Doc. 20) and Amended Complaints (Docs. 59; 77), the Court agrees with Defendants and finds that Plaintiff's Complaints are improper shotgun pleadings.

To begin, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 sets forth the general rules of pleading. Rule 8 instructs pleaders to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). The point of Rule 8 is “to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Harrison v. Benchmark Elec. Huntsville, Inc., 593 F.3d 1206, 1214 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 sets forth the form of pleadings and requires a party to “state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances” and that “each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence” must be stated in a “separate count or defense” if doing so would promote clarity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). A complaint that violates either Rule 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b) or both are often referred to as “shotgun pleadings.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sherriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). A shotgun pleading is a pleading drafted in such a way that is “virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.” E.g., Peavey v. Black, 476 Fed.Appx. 697, 699 (11th Cir. 2012). The Eleventh Circuit has frequently condemned shotgun pleadings. Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1357 (11th Cir. 2018) (stating shotgun pleadings are unintelligible documents that take “untold hours” of the district court and that tolerating shotgun pleadings “constitutes toleration of obstruction of justice,” which is why the Eleventh Circuit has “condemned shotgun pleadings time and again,” and a district court retains “authority to dismiss a shotgun pleading on that basis alone”); Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320; Cramer v. Florida, 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997). This is because shotgun pleadings “exact an intolerable toll on the trial court's docket, lead to unnecessary and unchanneled discovery, and impose unwarranted expense on the litigants, the court, and the court's parajudicial personnel and resources.” Cramer, 117 F.3d at 1263; Wagner v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273, 1279 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (stating that shotgun pleadings “wreak havoc on the judicial system” because they “divert already stretched judicial resources into disputes that are not structurally prepared to use those resources efficiently”).

The Eleventh Circuit has also stated that shotgun pleadings come in at least four different forms: (1) a pleading “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 pleading “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action”; (3) a pleading failing to “separate[e] into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief” and; (4) a pleading 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. When a complaint fits one of these descriptions, the district court should dismiss it on the basis that it is a shotgun pleading. Jackson, 898 F.3d at 1357. Where a district court faces repeated shotgun pleadings even after the plaintiff has been given chances to replead, the court may dismiss the case with prejudice. Id. at 1358.

Here the Court agrees with Defendants and finds that Plaintiff's operative Complaint (Doc. 20) and his proposed Amended Complaints (Docs. 59; 77) are improper shotgun pleadings. Plaintiff's operative Complaint (Doc. 20) is fifty-four (54) pages long, with each section containing long paragraphs that are difficult to comprehend and follow as it is unclear which claims and facts are directed at which Defendants. Moreover, Plaintiff's first proposed Amended Complaint (Doc. 59) is eighty-nine (89) pages and contains the same deficiencies as the operative Complaint (Doc. 20). Next, Plaintiff's second proposed Amended Complaint (Doc. 77) is 306 pages long and suffers from the same deficiencies as the operative Complaint and the prior proposed Amended Complaint (Doc. 59). None of these pleadings are short or concise, and not addressable on...