Lopez v. Actualidad Radio LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: July 20, 2023
• Docket: 1:23-cv-22692
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 23-cv-22692-BLOOM

ARTHUR LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACTUALIDAD RADIO LLC,

Defendants. _________________________/

ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff Arthur Lopez filed a pro se Complaint alleging multiple causes of action, ECF No. [1] and Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. ECF No. [3]. Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who has not paid the required filing fee, the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e) apply. Under that statute, the Court shall dismiss a suit “at any time if [it] determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (alterations added). Upon initial screening, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed and the Application denied, because the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Courts must “construe pro se pleadings liberally, holding them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.” Arrington v. Green, 757 F. App’x 796, 797 (11th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Still, a pro se party must abide by Rule 8(a)(2), which requires that a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the claim” showing the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021). Under Rule 8(a)(2), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Complaints that violate [] Rule 8(a)(2) . . . are often disparagingly referred to as ‘shotgun pleadings.’” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015) (alterations added). While there are various types of shotgun pleadings, their “unifying characteristic” is they “fail . . . to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Id., 792 F.3d at 1323 (alteration added; footnote call number omitted). Therefore, “shotgun pleadings are routinely condemned by the Eleventh Circuit.” Real Estate Mortg. Network, Inc. v. Cadrecha, No. 8:11-cv-474, 2011 WL 2881928, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2011) (citing Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1518 (11th Cir. 1991)). The Complaint here is a quintessential shotgun pleading, violating Rule 8(a)(2). It does not

“separate[] into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1322-23. The cover page of the complaint indicates that Plaintiff is pleading seven causes of action against multiple Defendants. ECF No. [1] at 1. The Complaint also includes a statement of facts which spans fifteen pages. Id. at 4-19. However, nowhere in the Complaint are the separate claims delineated with the relevant facts pled in support of each individual claim. See id. Additionally, The Complaint does not conform with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) requires a party to “state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Id. Rule Case No. 23-cv-22692-BLOOM

10(b) also specifies that “each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count or defense.” /d. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b) the Complaint does not provide “adequate notice” to Defendants, let alone the Court, “of the claims against [Defendants] and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. [3], is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. On or before August 14, 2023, Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint that corrects the deficiencies noted above. 4. With the filing of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff shall either pay the filing fee of $402.00, or file a second Application to Proceed in forma pauperis that corrects the deficiency noted above. 5. Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this case without further notice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on July 20, 2023.

BETHBLOOM =——<“i—i‘“CSO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Arthur Lopez P.O. Box 13081 Newport Beach, CA 92658 PRO SE