Michael James Longs Bey v. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, et al.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: March 30, 2026
• Docket: 8:25-cv-02360
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

MICHAEL JAMES LONGS BEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:25-cv-02360-JLB-AAS

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants. / ORDER The Magistrate Judge has entered a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17), recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff timely objected. (Doc. 20). BACKGROUND Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on September 3, 2025. (Docs. 1 & 2). Plaintiff brings the Complaint against Defendants Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, Deputy Mark R. Buswell, among others. On September 19, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order taking Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis under advisement, identifying violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within the Complaint, and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies on or before October 24, 2025. (See generally Doc. 7). Specifically, the Order determined that the Complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading. (Doc. 7 at 2–5). Plaintiff failed to timely file the amended complaint. Accordingly, on October

29, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 8). On November 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 10), which the Court granted, allowing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before November 25, 2025 (Doc. 12). The previously issued Report and Recommendation was vacated. (Doc. 13). On December 3, 2025, Plaintiff again moved for an extension of time to file an amended complaint (Doc. 15), which the Court again

granted, setting a December 30, 2025, deadline. (Doc. 16). Despite the ample amount of time provided by the Court to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff again failed to do so. The Magistrate Judge issued a new Report and Recommendation on January 5, 2025, recommending that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 17). On January 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint (Doc. 19), which this Court struck as

untimely (Doc. 21). Plaintiff also filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation, arguing that he should be allowed yet another extension of time to file an amended complaint due to extenuating financial circumstances. (Doc. 20). LEGAL STANDARD A district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. DISCUSSION

After an independent review of the entire record, the Court finds that the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation is due to be adopted. “A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both.” Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021) (citing Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320). Rule 8(a) requires a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 10(b) requires that a party “state its

claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). The “self-evident” purpose of the rules is “to require the pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly” so the adversary “can discern what he is claiming and frame a responsive pleading [and] the court can determine which facts support which claims and whether the plaintiff has stated any claims upon which relief can be granted.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1320

(citation omitted). There are four categories of shotgun pleadings. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321– 23. The first and most common type “is a complaint 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.” Id. The second is a complaint “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action.” Id. The third type of shotgun pleading is one that does not “separat[e] into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief.” Id. The fourth and final

category of shotgun pleading is one that “assert[s] 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. Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to delineate the allegations into counts and does not specify which allegations or claims are against which defendant. (See Doc. 1). Thus, the Complaint is a shotgun pleading. Further, to proceed in forma pauperis, a complaint must state viable causes

of action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Complaint fails to state a plausible claim against the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office because a sheriff’s office is not subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992) (affirming the district court’s decision to dismiss the Section 1983 claim against the sheriff’s department because under the applicable state law the sheriff department lacked capacity to be sued); Williams v. Miami-Dade Police

Dep’t, 297 F. App’x 941, 945 (11th Cir. 2008) (finding the police department does not have capacity to be sued under Florida law). Likewise, to the extent the Complaint is brought against Defendant Deputy Buswell, it fails to state a plausible claim because the alleged facts do not allow the Court to draw a reasonable inference that Deputy Buswell acted without probable cause. (See Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 1–7). Accordingly, itis ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. 2. Plaintiff's Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) is OVERRULED. 3. Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 4. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED as moot. 5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and close the file. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on March 30, 2026.

JOHN L. BADALAMENTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE