United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division
TERNECIA D. WILSON, Plaintiff,
RON WILSON, et al., Defendants.
M. Borden, United States District Judge.
February 21, 2019, Plaintiff Ternecia D. Wilson, appearing
pro se, filed a complaint against Defendants Ron
Wilson, Louise Wilson, Patrick Wilson, Hart Ramsey, Alethia
Ramsey, Gwen G. Oliver, Demitta Wilson, and Phyliss Bolden.
Doc. 1. Wilson also filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. Doc. 2. For the reasons stated below, it is
ORDERED that Wilson shall file an amended complaint on or
before June 20, 2019, in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the contents of this
currently constituted, Wilson's complaint (Doc. 1)
constitutes a “shotgun pleading” that does not
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 (internal citations omitted). Wilson's complaint
exhibits the characteristics of a shotgun pleading, which
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 America, N.A., 2016 WL 5402748, at *1 (M.D. Ala.
Sept. 26, 2016).
the court is mindful of Wilson'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). And a
plaintiff's complaint must provide sufficient factual
matter for the court to determine whether her claims have any
merit. See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1313.
case, Wilson asserts the following claims: extortion,
invasion, attempted murder, discrimination, racism, bigotry,
indignation, famine, and the loss of shelter. Doc. 1 at 1.
She alleges that these civil rights violations occurred in
Dothan, Alabama. Doc. 1 at 1. And she requests relief in the
form of one million dollars in damages. Doc. 1 at 2. But the
factual support for Wilson's claims is entirely absent
from the complaint. While it is possible that she may have a
viable claim, this is not currently discernable because the
complaint fails to provide any factual allegations or
information about the wrongdoing allegedly committed by
Defendants. Although Wilson lists a number of claims, she
does not coherently allege how Defendants' conduct
relates to those claims or how Defendants' conduct
relates to any violation of federal law. Consequently, the
court is unable to determine whether her claims have any
merit. See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1313.
it is ORDERED that Wilson shall file an amended complaint on
or before June 20, 2019, that complies with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the following
requirements of this Order, including:
a. The body of the amended complaint must contain factual
allegations explaining the alleged conduct by Defendants that
is at issue.
b. The amended complaint should specify which Defendant
committed each wrongful act.
c. The complaint must include clear allegations of fact
showing that Wilson is entitled to relief under federal law.
d. Wilson should clearly indicate which specific factual
allegations provide support for each of her claims.
Wilson is warned that her failure to submit an amended
complaint in compliance with this Order may result
in a recommendation of dismissal of this case.
 Eleventh Circuit courts routinely
instruct pro se litigants to correct their shotgun
pleadings with an amended complaint that complies with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Johnson v.
Georgia, 2016 WL 4709078 (11th Cir. Sept. 9, 2016);
Giles, 359 Fed.Appx. at 92-93; Maglutas,
256 F.3d at 1284 n.3 (“We have held that district
courts confronted by ...