Ruiz v. City of Miami Beach

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: August 13, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-22822
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 25-22822-CV-WILLIAMS

RAMON RUIZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, et al.,

Defendants. / ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein’s Report and Recommendation (DE 41) (“Report”) on Plaintiff Ramon Ruiz’s (“Plaintiff”) Emergency Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (DE 3) (“IFP Motion”), his Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (“Motion to Amend”) (DE 28) and his Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Preliminary Injunction Motion”) (DE 4). In the Report, Judge Elfenbein recommends that Plaintiff’s IFP Motion be granted, but that his Amended Complaint (DE 8) be dismissed without prejudice as it constitutes an impermissible “shotgun pleading that fails to comply with the basic pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) by incorporating all prior allegations into each successive count and obscuring the basis for individual claims[.]” (DE 41 at 9 n.5.) Judge Elfenbein also recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend be denied as any further amendment would be futile. (Id. at 11–12.) Specifically, “the proposed [second amended] Complaint continues to conflate distinct legal theories and unrelated factual events,” and “continues to rely on a shotgun format and does not address the pleading deficiencies of the Amended Complaint[.]’ (/d.) Finally, Judge Elfenbein recommends that Plaintiff's Preliminary Injunction Motion be denied as moot. (/d. at 2, 12.) Plaintiff timely objected to the Report. (DE 47; DE 57.) Upon a de novo review of the Report, the record, and applicable law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Judge Elfenbein’s Report (DE 41) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED to the extent consistent with this Order. 2. Plaintiffs IFP Motion (DE 3) is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (DE 8) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE." 4. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (DE 28) is DENIED. 5. Plaintiff's Preliminary Injunction Motion (DE 4) is DENIED AS MOOT. 6. All hearings, trial, and deadlines are CANCELED. All remaining pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, on this 13th day of August, 2025.

KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Although Judge Elfenbein recommended dismissal without prejudice, dismissal with prejudice is warranted here because the amended complaint fails to state a claim, and any further amendment would be futile. See Davis v. Fort Lauderdale Police Dep't (Internal Affairs), No. 23-10034, 2024 WL 548686, at *2 (11th Cir. Feb. 12, 2024) (“A dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is a dismissal on the merits and with prejudice.”) (citation omitted); see also Corbitt v. Wood, 677 F. App’x 596, 599 (11th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend where amendment would be futile).

Page 2 of 2