Bladimir Pineda Pena v. Osniel Morejon, in his individual and official capacity; and Adam Wright, in his individual and his official capacity
This text of Bladimir Pineda Pena v. Osniel Morejon, in his individual and official capacity; and Adam Wright, in his individual and his official capacity (Bladimir Pineda Pena v. Osniel Morejon, in his individual and official capacity; and Adam Wright, in his individual and his official capacity) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
BLADIMIR PINEDA PENA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 2:26-cv-00476-JES-NPM
OSNIEL MOREJON, in his individual and official capacity; and ADAM WRIGHT, in his individual and his official capacity,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on review of the file. For the reasons set forth below the Complaint (Doc. #1) will be dismissed as a shotgun pleading. “Complaints that violate either Rule 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both, are often disparagingly referred to as ‘shotgun pleadings.’” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). Of the four categories outlined in Weiland, the most prominent shotgun pleading occurs where a party incorporates preceding paragraphs from the previous counts, thereby leading to a situation where most of the counts (i.e., all but the first) contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions. Id. at 1324 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Counts II through V “realleges and incorporates by reference [all preceding paragraphs] of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.” (Doc. #1, ¶¶ 38, 53, 64, 73.) By doing so, this
Complaint is a “quintessential ‘shotgun’ pleading—the sort of pleading we have been roundly condemning for 30 years.” See Keith v. DeKalb Cnty., 749 F.3d 1034, 1045 n.39 (11th Cir. 2013)(collecting cases). As a result, each count is now “replete with factual allegations that could not possibly be material to that count, and that any allegations that are material are buried beneath innumerable pages of rambling irrelevancies.” Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). This Court has an obligation “to take the initiative to dismiss” the Complaint but must give Plaintiff an opportunity to replead before dismissing his case with prejudice on non-merits shotgun pleading grounds. See Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878
F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2018); Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321 n. 10. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: The Complaint (Doc. #1) is DISMISSED as a shotgun pleading without prejudice to filing an Amended Complaint within SEVEN (7) DAYS of this Order. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 24th day of February 2026.
□□□ JQGOHH E. STEELE 5 IOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: Parties of record
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bladimir Pineda Pena v. Osniel Morejon, in his individual and official capacity; and Adam Wright, in his individual and his official capacity, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bladimir-pineda-pena-v-osniel-morejon-in-his-individual-and-official-flmd-2026.