Case: 20-11277 Date Filed: 07/10/2020 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-11277
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:20-cv-00016-CLS
JOSHUA CLAY ADAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HUNTSVILLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(July 10, 2020)
Before BRANCH, LUCK and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 20-11277 Date Filed: 07/10/2020 Page: 2 of 6
Appellant, Joshua Clay Adams (“Adams”), appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his federal claims with prejudice and dismissing his supplemental state
law claims without prejudice. Adams asserted various federal and state claims
against appellee, Huntsville Hospital (the “hospital”), arising from an alleged visit
to the hospital and the resulting treatment he received from the hospital. After
reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s
order.
I.
Adams filed an amended complaint asserting claims of disability
discrimination under Sections 504 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended,
29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.; disability discrimination under Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.;
disability discrimination under the Mental Health Systems Act,
42 U.S.C. § 9501;
and sought recovery of damages resulting from the deprivation of rights as
authorized by
42 U.S.C. § 1983 under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth,
and Fourteenth Amendments. Adams also asserted supplemental state law claims
under Alabama’s Mental Health Consumer Rights Act, Alabama Code § 22-52-7
and Alabama Code § 6-5-170 (defining false imprisonment). Adams’s initial
complaint alleged that he presented himself to the hospital, where he was held
2
Case: 20-11277 Date Filed: 07/10/2020 Page: 3 of 6
against his will for three days. The hospital filed for a more definite statement
under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(e), arguing that Adams’s complaint was a
“shotgun” pleading that did not satisfy Rules 8(a) and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The district court ordered Adams to file an amended complaint,
and he complied. The amended complaint contained more pages, paragraphs, and
allegations than the original complaint. The hospital moved to dismiss the
amended complaint, requesting that the district court dismiss the federal claims
with prejudice for failure to comply with the requirements of Rules 8(a) and 10(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and dismiss the state law claims without
prejudice to allow Adams to refile his claims in state court. The district court
granted the hospital’s motion, finding that the amended complaint was a “shotgun”
pleading that did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the law
of this circuit.
II.
We conclude from the record that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in granting the hospital’s motion to dismiss Adams’s amended
complaint. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office,
792 F.3d 1313, 1320
(11th Cir. 2015) (abuse of discretion standard of review). Rule 8(a)(2) requires
that a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
3
Case: 20-11277 Date Filed: 07/10/2020 Page: 4 of 6
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 10(b) requires a plaintiff
to “state [his] claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as
practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). In this circuit,
we have condemned “shotgun” pleadings and have noted that these pleadings
violate the rules of civil procedure by failing to give the defendant adequate notice
of the claims against him and the grounds upon which each claim rests. Weiland,
792 F.3d at 1323. See also Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets,
878 F.3d 1291, 1294–95
(11th Cir. 2018) (noting that the court demonstrates “little tolerance” for shotgun
pleadings). We have instructed district courts to give a plaintiff the opportunity to
clarify the claims and remedy the deficiencies in the complaint. See Wagner v.
First Horizon Pharm. Corp.,
464 F.3d 1273, 1280 (11th Cir. 200). Here, the
district court did that for Adams.
III.
We have identified four categories of “shotgun” pleadings: (1) “a complaint
containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding
counts”; (2) a complaint that is “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial
facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action”; (3) a pleading that
does not “separate[e] into a different count each cause of action or claim for
relief”; and (4) a pleading that asserts multiple claims against multiple defendants
4
Case: 20-11277 Date Filed: 07/10/2020 Page: 5 of 6
without specifying which defendant allegedly committed which claim. Weiland,
792 F.3d at 1321–23. The district court found that Adams’s amended complaint
fell within the first three categories, and we agree with that finding.
First, the amended complaint states that all counts derive from the same set
of operative facts, and it recites anew the factual allegations in each count. This
type of pleading leaves the reader to speculate as to which factual allegations
pertain to which count. Second, the amended complaint contains multiple
paragraphs of legal conclusions and arguments disguised as “facts.” It also fails to
specify the facts in support of the distinct causes of action to support the
conclusory arguments. In addition, due to its length, 72 pages, number of
paragraphs, 242, and counts, 15, the pleading cannot be considered a short and
plain statement of the claims showing that Adams is entitled to relief.
Third, the amended complaint is not properly separated into different counts.
The complaint contains numbered counts, but these counts are not clearly alleged.
In Counts 1 and 2, Adams asserts claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the
Americans with Disabilities Act, but also includes allegations about false
imprisonment and denial of liberty without due process. Counts 4 and 11 both
assert claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, and Count 4 also asserts an
independent claim for a violation of his substantive due process rights, when the
5
Case: 20-11277 Date Filed: 07/10/2020 Page: 6 of 6
claims are covered by other constitutional amendments. See Echols v. Lawton,
913
F.3d 1313, 1326 (11th Cir. 2019) (admonishing plaintiffs whose claims are
covered by a specific constitutional provision from supplementing the claims
through a substantive due process portal).
Moreover, the district court correctly found that Adams asserted several non-
justiciable constitutional claims, and he ignored the heightened pleading
requirements under the Alabama Medical Liability Act,
Ala. Code § 6-5-551
(1975) (providing that the plaintiff shall include in the complaint a detailed
specification and factual description of each act and omission alleged by the
plaintiff to render the health care provider liable). The district court gave Adams
an opportunity to correct the defects in his complaint, but he failed to do so. Thus,
we conclude from the record that the district court properly dismissed the federal
claims with prejudice and the state law claims without prejudice. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s order dismissing Adams’s amended complaint.
AFFIRMED.
6
