UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
NV PHARAOH,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 3:25-cv-838-MMH-PDB
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant. /
ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff, NV Pharaoh, initiated this action on July 24, 2025, by filing a Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1; Complaint). Upon review, the Court finds that the Complaint constitutes an impermissible “shotgun pleading.” While pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney, Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 967 (11th Cir. 1986), the pro se litigant is still required to “‘conform to procedural rules.’” Riley v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 222 F. App’x 897, 898 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002)).1 The Federal Rules of Civil
1 All filings with the Court must be made in accordance with the requirements of the Rules and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Local Rules(s)). The Local Rules are available for review at www.flmd.uscourts.gov, and a copy may be obtained by visiting the Clerk’s Office. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are Procedure (Rule(s)) require that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule
8(a)(2). “‘A complaint need not specify in detail the precise theory giving rise to recovery. All that is required is that the defendant be on notice as to the claim being asserted against him and the grounds on which it rests.’” Evans v. McClain of Ga., Inc., 131 F.3d 957, 964 n.2 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoted authority
omitted). Despite Rule 8(a)’s liberal pleading requirement, “a complaint must still contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements of a cause of action.” Snow v. DirecTV, Inc., 450 F.3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006) (emphasis omitted). Rules 8 and 10 work together “‘to require the
pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly, so that his adversary can discern what he is claiming and frame a responsive pleading, the court can determine which facts support which claims and whether the plaintiff has stated any claims upon which relief can be granted, and, at trial, the court can
determine that evidence which is relevant and that which is not.’” Fikes v. City of Daphne, 79 F.3d 1079, 1082 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoted authority omitted).
available online and in state court law libraries. In citing to Riley, the Court notes that “[a]lthough an unpublished opinion is not binding … , it is persuasive authority.” United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1289 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam); see generally Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 11th Cir. R. 36–2 (“Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority.”). Significantly, a complaint may not run afoul of the Eleventh Circuit’s prohibition against shotgun pleading. See generally Weiland v. Palm Beach
Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015) (outlining four broad categories of impermissible shotgun pleadings). The Eleventh Circuit has unequivocally instructed that shotgun pleadings are “altogether unacceptable.” Cramer v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Cook v.
Randolph Cnty., 573 F.3d 1143, 1151 (11th Cir. 2009) (“We have had much to say about shotgun pleadings, none of which is favorable.” (collecting cases)). Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has engaged in a “thirty-year salvo of criticism aimed at shotgun pleadings, and there is no ceasefire in sight.” Weiland, 792
F.3d at 1321; see, e.g., id. at 1321 n.9 (collecting cases). Striking shotgun pleadings is more than just procedural formalism: as the Court in Cramer recognized, “[s]hotgun pleadings, whether filed by plaintiffs or defendants, exact an intolerable toll on the trial court’s docket, lead to unnecessary and
unchannelled discovery, and impose unwarranted expense on the litigants, the court and the court’s parajudicial personnel and resources.” Cramer, 117 F.3d at 1263. As such, when faced with the burden of deciphering a shotgun pleading, it is the trial court’s obligation to strike the pleading on its own initiative and
force the plaintiff to replead to the extent possible under Rule 11. See id. (admonishing district court for not striking shotgun complaint on its own initiative); see also Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321 n.10 (“[W]e have also advised that when a defendant fails to [move for a more definite statement], the district court ought to take the initiative to dismiss or strike the shotgun pleading and
give the plaintiff an opportunity to replead.”). Relevant here, one type of improper pleading occurs when the plaintiff “commits the sin of not separating into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief.” Id. at 1322–23; see, e.g., id. at 1323 n.13 (collecting cases).
Indeed, Rule 10(b) requires that: “[i]f doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence … must be stated in a separate count … .” Rule 10(b); see also Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. College, 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996) (explaining that a properly drawn
complaint “will present each claim for relief in a separate count, as required by Rule 10(b), and with such clarity and precision that the defendant will be able to discern what the plaintiff is claiming and to frame a responsive pleading” (footnote omitted)). In the Complaint, Plaintiff appears to assert multiple
claims under both federal and state law without separating any of the claims into identifiable counts. See Complaint at 4–5. Each of these claims requires Plaintiff to establish different facts, and thus, each such claim should be stated in a separately identifiable count.
Importantly, when repleading with separate counts, Plaintiff also should take care to avoid drafting a complaint in which he adopts or incorporates the allegations of preceding counts, as this too constitutes a form of impermissible shotgun pleading. See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321 (“The most common type [of shotgun complaint] … 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.”). Because the Complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading, the Court
will strike the filing and direct Plaintiff to file a corrected complaint. See Holbrook v. Castle Key Ins. Co., 405 F. App’x 459, 460–61 (11th Cir. 2010) (“The district court has the inherent authority sua sponte to require the plaintiff to file a more definite statement.”). In accordance with Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b),
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
NV PHARAOH,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 3:25-cv-838-MMH-PDB
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant. /
ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte. Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff, NV Pharaoh, initiated this action on July 24, 2025, by filing a Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1; Complaint). Upon review, the Court finds that the Complaint constitutes an impermissible “shotgun pleading.” While pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by an attorney, Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 967 (11th Cir. 1986), the pro se litigant is still required to “‘conform to procedural rules.’” Riley v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 222 F. App’x 897, 898 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002)).1 The Federal Rules of Civil
1 All filings with the Court must be made in accordance with the requirements of the Rules and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Local Rules(s)). The Local Rules are available for review at www.flmd.uscourts.gov, and a copy may be obtained by visiting the Clerk’s Office. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are Procedure (Rule(s)) require that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule
8(a)(2). “‘A complaint need not specify in detail the precise theory giving rise to recovery. All that is required is that the defendant be on notice as to the claim being asserted against him and the grounds on which it rests.’” Evans v. McClain of Ga., Inc., 131 F.3d 957, 964 n.2 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoted authority
omitted). Despite Rule 8(a)’s liberal pleading requirement, “a complaint must still contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements of a cause of action.” Snow v. DirecTV, Inc., 450 F.3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006) (emphasis omitted). Rules 8 and 10 work together “‘to require the
pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly, so that his adversary can discern what he is claiming and frame a responsive pleading, the court can determine which facts support which claims and whether the plaintiff has stated any claims upon which relief can be granted, and, at trial, the court can
determine that evidence which is relevant and that which is not.’” Fikes v. City of Daphne, 79 F.3d 1079, 1082 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoted authority omitted).
available online and in state court law libraries. In citing to Riley, the Court notes that “[a]lthough an unpublished opinion is not binding … , it is persuasive authority.” United States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1289 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam); see generally Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 11th Cir. R. 36–2 (“Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority.”). Significantly, a complaint may not run afoul of the Eleventh Circuit’s prohibition against shotgun pleading. See generally Weiland v. Palm Beach
Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015) (outlining four broad categories of impermissible shotgun pleadings). The Eleventh Circuit has unequivocally instructed that shotgun pleadings are “altogether unacceptable.” Cramer v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Cook v.
Randolph Cnty., 573 F.3d 1143, 1151 (11th Cir. 2009) (“We have had much to say about shotgun pleadings, none of which is favorable.” (collecting cases)). Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has engaged in a “thirty-year salvo of criticism aimed at shotgun pleadings, and there is no ceasefire in sight.” Weiland, 792
F.3d at 1321; see, e.g., id. at 1321 n.9 (collecting cases). Striking shotgun pleadings is more than just procedural formalism: as the Court in Cramer recognized, “[s]hotgun pleadings, whether filed by plaintiffs or defendants, exact an intolerable toll on the trial court’s docket, lead to unnecessary and
unchannelled discovery, and impose unwarranted expense on the litigants, the court and the court’s parajudicial personnel and resources.” Cramer, 117 F.3d at 1263. As such, when faced with the burden of deciphering a shotgun pleading, it is the trial court’s obligation to strike the pleading on its own initiative and
force the plaintiff to replead to the extent possible under Rule 11. See id. (admonishing district court for not striking shotgun complaint on its own initiative); see also Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321 n.10 (“[W]e have also advised that when a defendant fails to [move for a more definite statement], the district court ought to take the initiative to dismiss or strike the shotgun pleading and
give the plaintiff an opportunity to replead.”). Relevant here, one type of improper pleading occurs when the plaintiff “commits the sin of not separating into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief.” Id. at 1322–23; see, e.g., id. at 1323 n.13 (collecting cases).
Indeed, Rule 10(b) requires that: “[i]f doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence … must be stated in a separate count … .” Rule 10(b); see also Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. College, 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996) (explaining that a properly drawn
complaint “will present each claim for relief in a separate count, as required by Rule 10(b), and with such clarity and precision that the defendant will be able to discern what the plaintiff is claiming and to frame a responsive pleading” (footnote omitted)). In the Complaint, Plaintiff appears to assert multiple
claims under both federal and state law without separating any of the claims into identifiable counts. See Complaint at 4–5. Each of these claims requires Plaintiff to establish different facts, and thus, each such claim should be stated in a separately identifiable count.
Importantly, when repleading with separate counts, Plaintiff also should take care to avoid drafting a complaint in which he adopts or incorporates the allegations of preceding counts, as this too constitutes a form of impermissible shotgun pleading. See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321 (“The most common type [of shotgun complaint] … 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.”). Because the Complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading, the Court
will strike the filing and direct Plaintiff to file a corrected complaint. See Holbrook v. Castle Key Ins. Co., 405 F. App’x 459, 460–61 (11th Cir. 2010) (“The district court has the inherent authority sua sponte to require the plaintiff to file a more definite statement.”). In accordance with Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b),
Plaintiff must set forth separate causes of action in numbered counts against specific defendants and must provide “a short and plain statement” of his claims demonstrating that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Rules 8(a)(2), 10(b). Plaintiff must avoid the shotgun pleading deficiencies discussed above and
describe in sufficient detail the factual basis for each of his claims. Failure to comply with the Rules and this Order may result in dismissal of this action without further notice.2
2 Plaintiff is encouraged to consider consulting with a legal aid organization that offers free legal services before filing his corrected complaint. One resource available in Jacksonville is the Legal Information Program offered by the Jacksonville Federal Court Bar Association. To participate in the program, Plaintiff may contact the Clerk’s office at (904) 549-1900, and the Clerk will provide his name and phone number to Jacksonville Area Legal Aid for a lawyer to call him. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1) is STRICKEN. 2. Plaintiff shall file a corrected complaint on or before September 12, 2025.8 3. Defendant shall respond to the corrected complaint in accordance with the requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 22nd day of August, 2025.
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge
Le35 Copies to: Pro Se Party Counsel of Record
3 The filing of the corrected complaint does not affect any right Plaintiff may have to amend as a matter of course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1).