Background
Pro se plaintiff Diane Bates appealed the district court’s dismissal of her thirty-five count, three hundred ten paragraph amended complaint and the denial of her motion for reconsideration. The district court had previously ordered Bates to file a second amended complaint to cure deficiencies but she elected to stand on her original pleading.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the dismissal under Rule Eight A Two for abuse of discretion. It found the complaint replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular claim. The pleading failed to specify which defendants were responsible for which acts or omissions. The court noted that material allegations were buried beneath innumerable pages of rambling irrelevancies. The court affirmed that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate given the clear indication that the plaintiff did not want to amend her complaint.
simply put, the pleading fails to provide the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015)
What it means going forward
Pro se litigants must file complaints that clearly identify claims and link them to specific defendants. Courts may dismiss with prejudice if a plaintiff refuses to amend a shotgun pleading after being given an opportunity to correct it.