United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
ORDER
GRAY M
BORDEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before
the court is the pro se complaint of Plaintiff
Montrail Russell. Doc. 1. Also pending is a Motion to Proceed
in forma pauperis. Doc. 4. For the reasons stated
below, it is ORDERED that Russell shall file an amended
complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the contents of this Order, as instructed
below.
As
currently constituted, the complaint (Doc. 1) constitutes a
“shotgun pleading” that does not comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Russell's complaint
constitutes a long list of grievances that occurred at the
Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Doc. 1. But his list does not tie these grievances to a
violation of any federal statute or other federal law.
Rule 8
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint
to contain a short and plain statement showing that the
plaintiff is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The
allegations should be “simple, concise, and
direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). Each claim should be
stated in separate, numbered paragraphs, “limited as
far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). This enables the opposing party to
respond adequately and appropriately to the claims against
it, and allows the court to “determine which facts
support which claims and whether the plaintiff has stated any
claims upon which relief can be granted.” Weiland
v. Palm Beach Cty. Sherriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313,
1320 (11th Cir. 2015) (internal citations omitted). Shotgun
pleadings have been “roundly condemned” in the
Eleventh Circuit “both for the confusion they cause
litigants and the havoc they wreak on the docket.”
McCall v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2016 WL 5402748, at *1
(M.D. Ala. Sept. 26, 2016). In McCall, the court
explained that there are four varieties of shotgun pleadings:
(1) complaints “containing multiple counts where each
count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, ”
(2) complaints that are “replete with conclusory,
vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any
particular cause of action, ” (3) complaints that fail
to “separat[e] into a different count each cause of
action or claim for relief, ” and (4) complaints that
“assert[] 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.”
Id. (quoting Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1322-23).
Russell's
complaint itself is a relatively short form complaint, but
the factual allegations are vague, imprecise, and include a
host of legal conclusions. While it is possible that
Russell's allegations may serve the basis for viable
legal claims, that is not currently discernable because
Russell's complaint is “replete with conclusory,
vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any
particular cause of action, ” and does not specify
“which of the defendants are responsible for which acts
or omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is brought
against.” Id. It is not clear from the
complaint which laws are allegedly being violated, as there
is no reference to any specific federal law. And though
Russell mentions “cruel and unusual punishment”
in passing (Doc. 1 at 2), it does not appear that Russell
intends to claim that all of his grievances-for example, not
receiving sweeteners for tea, coffee, and juice (Doc. 1 at
7)-violate the Eighth Amendment. Additionally, it is unclear
which grievances are lodged against which defendant since the
complaint does not specify whether Taylor Hardin or the
Alabama Department of Mental Health is responsible for each
alleged violation.
Though
the court is mindful of Russell's pro se status,
and the fact that pro se pleadings are held to a
lesser standard than those prepared by attorneys, pro
se litigants still must comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d
1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008); Giles v. Wal-Mart Distrib.
Ctr., 359 Fed.Appx. 91, 93 (11th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Russell shall file an amended
complaint[1] on or before May 9, 2019,
that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the following requirements of this Order, including:
a. Russell must indicate which federal law each factual
allegation, or grievance, purportedly violates;
b. Russell must clearly indicate which claims are brought
against which defendant;
c. The amended complaint must set forth allegations of fact
that are simple, concise, sufficiently detailed, and material
to each of Russell's federal claims.
Russell
is warned that the failure to submit an amended complaint in
compliance with this Order may result in recommendation of
dismissal of his case.[2]
---------