From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Magluta v. Samples

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jul 13, 2001
256 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2001)

Summary

holding that a complaint was a shotgun complaint when, among other issues, the complaint was 58-pages long and contained at least 146 numbered paragraphs

Summary of this case from McGuire v. Marshall

Opinion

No. 00-12540.

July 13, 2001.

Neil M. Schuster, Miami Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Edward R. Cohen, Dept. of Justice, Civil App. Div., Washington, DC, Sharon Douglas Stokes, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before CARNES, COX and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.

Honorable John T. Noonan, Jr., U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.


I. BACKGROUND

In April 1991, Salvador Magluta was indicted in the Southern District of Florida on various charges involving cocaine trafficking. The United States Marshals Service apprehended Magluta in October 1991 and placed him in federal custody. Following his arrest, Magluta was held in three different federal facilities — first in Miami, then in Talledega, and later in Atlanta — before reaching trial in 1996. He was acquitted.

Magluta filed this Bivens action in 1994 during his pretrial detention at the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta. The complaint asserts a variety of constitutional claims relating to the conditions of his confinement against fourteen federal officials. The defendants filed a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss. The ten non-resident defendants sought dismissal on Rule 12(b)(2) grounds asserting lack of personal jurisdiction; the four Georgia residents sought dismissal on 12(b)(6) grounds, asserting failure to state a claim and, alternatively, qualified immunity. The district court dismissed the ten non-resident defendants, concluding that they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the court. We previously affirmed that dismissal.

See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).

Four defendants remain: F.P. Sam Samples, Michael W. Garrett, Fred Stock, and Michael Bell. Samples and Garrett are alleged to have been the Regional Director and Deputy Regional Director, respectively, of the Bureau of Prisons (Southeast Regional Office). Stock and Bell are alleged to have been the Warden and Associate Warden, respectively, at the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia.

All of Magluta's claims relate to the conditions of his confinement as a pretrial detainee. The centerpiece of his complaint, and his brief on appeal, is his Fifth Amendment due process claim. The complaint alleges that he was placed in solitary confinement — the "hole" — through a series of detention orders at four different federal prisons, including Atlanta, for cumulatively more than 721 days. Magluta alleges this lengthy and harsh pretrial detention was solely for the purpose of punishment or retribution, was not justified by any legitimate institutional concerns, and was imposed by various detention orders without notice, a hearing, or meaningful review. This, Magluta alleges, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The district court dismissed all claims against the four resident defendants pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), concluding that the complaint failed to state a claim.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

Magluta's brief on appeal argues that the complaint alleges five viable constitutional claims with sufficient particularity to survive 12(b)(6) dismissal. Magluta's brief characterizes the claims as follows. Count One is the Fifth Amendment due process claim based upon Magluta's lengthy and harsh pretrial detention. Count Two alleges a due process and Eighth Amendment claim based upon the deliberate indifference prison officials demonstrated to Magluta's serious medical needs and the conditions of his pretrial detention. Count Four alleges a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Count Five asserts a due process claim based upon the totality of the circumstances of Magluta's pretrial detention. Count Six is said to be based upon the First Amendment right of access to the courts, and alleges that the conditions of Magluta's confinement were imposed in retaliation for his having filed lawsuits challenging the conditions of his confinement.

The defendants argue that the district court correctly concluded that the complaint fails to state a claim and, alternatively, that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the rights asserted were not clearly established.

The district court did not address the issue of qualified immunity, apparently finding it unnecessary to do so because of its conclusion that the complaint failed to state a claim.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, and a complaint may not be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).

IV. DISCUSSION

Our first task is to determine whether "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim[s] which would entitle him to relief." Id. In making this decision we must respect the rule that heightened specificity is required in civil rights actions against public officials who may be entitled to qualified immunity. See Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham, 963 F.2d 1481, 1485 (11th Cir. 1992); GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir. 1998). In this case our task is a daunting one.

The complaint is a quintessential "shotgun" pleading of the kind we have condemned repeatedly, beginning at least as early as 1991. It is in no sense the "short and plain statement of the claim" required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). It is fifty-eight pages long. It names fourteen defendants, and all defendants are charged in each count. The complaint is replete with allegations that "the defendants" engaged in certain conduct, making no distinction among the fourteen defendants charged, though geographic and temporal realities make plain that all of the defendants could not have participated in every act complained of. Each count incorporates by reference the allegations made in a section entitled "General Factual Allegations" — which comprises 146 numbered paragraphs — while also incorporating the allegations of any count or counts that precede it. The result is that each count is replete with factual allegations that could not possibly be material to that specific count, and that any allegations that are material are buried beneath innumerable pages of rambling irrelevancies. This type of pleading completely disregards Rule 10(b)'s requirement that discrete claims should be plead in separate counts, see Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Tr., 77 F.3d 364, 366-67 (11th Cir. 1996), and is the type of complaint that we have criticized time and again. See, e.g., BMC Indus., Inc. v. Barth Indus., Inc., 160 F.3d 1322, 1326-27 n. 6 (11th Cir. 1998); GJR Invs., Inc., 132 F.3d at 1368; Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1518-19 (11th Cir. 1991).

We have held that district courts confronted by such complaints have the inherent authority to demand repleader sua sponte. See Johnson Enters. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc., 162 F.3d 1290, 1332 n. 94 (11th Cir. 1998); Fikes v. City of Daphne, 79 F.3d 1079, 1083 n. 6 (11th Cir. 1996).

In the past when faced with complaints like this one, we have vacated judgments and remanded with instructions that the district court require plaintiffs to replead their claims. See Cesnik v. Edgewood Baptist Church, 88 F.3d 902, 910 (11th Cir. 1996). That is the appropriate disposition here.

We are unwilling to address and decide serious constitutional issues on the basis of this complaint. We could perhaps decide whether some of these claims were subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), leaving for another day a decision about other claims following repleading on remand. Piecemeal adjudication of that kind, however, does not promote judicial efficiency. And the toleration of complaints such as this one "does great disservice to the administration of civil justice." Johnson Enters. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Group, Inc., 162 F.3d 1290, 1332 (11th Cir. 1998).

We express no opinion on the merits of Magluta's constitutional claims beyond saying that we suspect that Magluta's Fifth Amendment due process claim, if alleged with sufficient specificity, might not be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). We also suspect (but need not decide) that this complaint lacks the requisite specificity.

For all of these reasons, we vacate the judgment dismissing the action and remand. On remand the district court should enter an order striking the complaint and require a repleading of all claims in a complaint that respects the requirements of Rule 8 and the heightened pleading requirement for cases such as this one.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.


Summaries of

Magluta v. Samples

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jul 13, 2001
256 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2001)

holding that a complaint was a shotgun complaint when, among other issues, the complaint was 58-pages long and contained at least 146 numbered paragraphs

Summary of this case from McGuire v. Marshall

holding complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 where "any allegations that are material are buried beneath innumerable pages of rambling irrelevancies"

Summary of this case from Dillard v. Perry

holding claims alleged generally against fourteen defendants were insufficient

Summary of this case from Hughey v. Camacho

holding that a shotgun pleading is "in no sense the 'short plain statement of a claim' required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"

Summary of this case from Eatman v. Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Health

holding that a shotgun pleading is “in no sense the ‘short and plain statement of a claim’ required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”

Summary of this case from Regenicin, Inc. v. Lonza Walkersville, Inc.

holding that a shotgun pleading is "in no sense the `short and plain statement of a claim' required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

Summary of this case from Giscombe v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc.

finding quintessential shotgun pleading "completely disregards Rule 10(b)'s requirement that discrete claims should be plead in separate counts . . . and is the type of complaint that we have criticized time and time again"

Summary of this case from Litman v. Sec'y

finding that "[s]hotgun pleading" results in counts that are "replete with factual allegations that could not possibly be material to that specific count, and that any allegations that are material are buried beneath innumerable pages of rambling irrelevancies"

Summary of this case from Prosser v. Proctor

finding that "[s]hotgun pleading" results in counts that are "replete with factual allegations that could not possibly be material to that specific count, and that any allegations that are material are buried beneath innumerable pages of rambling irrelevancies"

Summary of this case from Sagez v. Global Agric. Invs., LLC

finding complaint to be the "quintessential 'shotgun' pleading" where the fifty-eight page complaint charged all fourteen defendants in each count, was replete with ambiguities, and contained myriad pages of "rambling irrelevancies"

Summary of this case from Eads v. Allstate Indem. Co.

finding a 58-page complaint to be a shotgun pleading where it made no distinction among fourteen defendants charged, and it incorporated 146 paragraphs of general factual allegations in each count, as well as incorporating allegations contained in each count in all subsequent counts

Summary of this case from Jones v. Florida Power Light Company

finding that "[s]hotgun pleading" results in counts that are "replete with factual allegations that could not possibly be material to that specific count, and that any allegations that are material are buried beneath innumerable pages of rambling irrelevancies"

Summary of this case from Young v. Wells Fargo Company

affirming dismissal of complaint that was "replete with allegations that ‘the defendants’ engaged in certain conduct, making no distinction among the fourteen defendants charged"

Summary of this case from Guerra v. Rockdale Cnty.

affirming the district court's dismissal of a complaint that incorporated by reference 146 numbered paragraphs of factual allegations into each claim, incorporated the allegations of each preceding claim, entailed numerous immaterial and rambling factual allegations, and charged "all defendants" in each count

Summary of this case from Addahoumi v. Pastides

affirming the district court's dismissal of a complaint that incorporated by reference 146 numbered paragraphs of factual allegations into each claim, incorporated the allegations of each preceding claim, entailed numerous immaterial and rambling factual allegations, and charged "all defendants" in each count

Summary of this case from Negron-Bennett v. McCandless

affirming the district court's dismissal of a complaint that incorporated by reference 146 numbered paragraphs of factual allegations into each claim, incorporated the allegations of each preceding claim, entailed numerous immaterial and rambling factual allegations, and charged "all defendants" in each count

Summary of this case from Negron-Bennett v. McCandless

reversing district court's judgment dismissing complaint and remanding to permit plaintiff to replead claims in shotgun complaint

Summary of this case from Hayden v. Alabama Dep't of Public Safety

reversing district court's judgment dismissing complaint and remanding to permit plaintiff to replead claims in shotgun complaint

Summary of this case from Hooper v. City of Montgomery

reversing district court's judgment dismissing complaint and remanding to permit plaintiff to replead claims in shotgun complaint

Summary of this case from Cobb v. Marshall

reversing district court's judgment dismissing complaint and remanding to permit plaintiff to replead claims in shotgun complaint

Summary of this case from Walker v. Councill Trenholm State Technical College

rejecting allegation that defendants "engaged in certain conduct" where complaint "mak[es] no distinction among the fourteen defendants charged"

Summary of this case from Banks v. U.S. Marshals Serv.

rejecting allegation that defendants "engaged in certain conduct" where complaint "mak[es] no distinction among the fourteen defendants charged"

Summary of this case from Banks v. U.S. Marshals Serv.

striking complaint against fourteen defendants containing allegations against all defendants without distinction and counts that incorporated all general allegations regardless of materiality to each specific count

Summary of this case from Heise v. Porcelli

recognizing the inherent authority of district courts to demand repleader sua sponte

Summary of this case from Morris v. Trust Co. of Va.

recognizing that, in the Eleventh Circuit, a complaint must be pleaded with "heightened specificity . . . in civil rights actions against public officials who may be entitled to qualified immunity"

Summary of this case from Hayden v. Alabama Dep't of Public Safety
Case details for

Magluta v. Samples

Case Details

Full title:Salvador MAGLUTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. F.P. Sam SAMPLES, Michael W…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Jul 13, 2001

Citations

256 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2001)

Citing Cases

Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Office

”); Sikes v. Teleline, Inc., 281 F.3d 1350, 1356 n. 9 (11th Cir.2002) (“We note that the plaintiffs'…

TRAFFIC JAM EVENTS, LLC v. CORTES

Such pleadings typically assert a laundry list of counts, each incorporating the allegations of the previous…