USCA11 Case: 22-12037 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 04/18/2023 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12037
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
SOHAIL M. ABDULLA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SOUTHERN BANK,
Defendant-Appellee,
SARDIS BANKSHARES, INC.,
Defendant.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12037 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 04/18/2023 Page: 2 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12037
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00099-JRH-BKE
____________________
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sohail Abdulla appeals the district court’s order granting
Southern Bank’s motion to dismiss his pro se amended complaint,
which raised breach-of-contract, accounting, and illegal-entry-into-
a-safety-deposit-box claims. On appeal, he argues the district court
erred by dismissing his complaint. After careful review, we affirm. 1
I.
On June 23, 2021, Abdulla filed his initial complaint against
Southern Bank and its former holding company, Sardis Bankshares,
Inc., alleging violations of several federal and state laws. Southern
Bank and Sardis moved for a more definite statement and to dis-
miss for numerous reasons, including failure to state a claim. The
parties stipulated a dismissal of Sardis from the lawsuit. On January
3, 2022, the district court granted the motion to dismiss as to the
federal law claims for failure to state a claim, determining those
statutes lacked a private cause of action. The district court then
1 In its brief on appeal, Southern Bank asks us to sanction Abdulla pursuant to
our Local Rule 25-6(a)(1) for arguing on appeal that Southern Bank lied in an
affidavit below. We conclude that sanctions are not appropriate here.
USCA11 Case: 22-12037 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 04/18/2023 Page: 3 of 7
22-12037 Opinion of the Court 3
noted that the remainder of Abdulla’s initial complaint was a shot-
gun pleading and gave him an opportunity to amend. The district
court explained that Abdulla had to set forth each of his claims as
separate claims, clearly allege the appropriate facts under each of
his claims, state each claim plainly and succinctly without conclu-
sory allegations, and eliminate extraneous material.
On January 18, 2022, Abdulla filed his amended complaint,
alleging diversity jurisdiction over his state law claims. Abdulla
marshaled three counts: (1) breach of contract, (2) accounting, and
(3) illegal entry into a safety deposit box. His breach-of-contract
and accounting claims contained very little factual matter and con-
clusory allegations. These two counts also incorporated his previ-
ous sixty factual allegations, discussing various properties and the
bank notes attached to each property and other actions allegedly
taken by Southern Bank. The accounting claim also incorporated
the allegations listed in his breach-of-contract claim. His third
claim—illegal entry into a safety deposit box—contains only two
paragraphs, one of which contains multiple allegations ranging
from specific-and-detailed to conclusory. Abdulla also attached
over 270 pages of exhibits. Southern Bank moved to dismiss for
failure to state a claim or failure to comply with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and the court’s prior order.
On May 10, 2022, the district court granted Southern Bank’s
motion to dismiss, finding Abdulla’s amended complaint to be a
shotgun pleading because (1) two of his claims incorporated all pre-
ceding paragraphs; (2) the amended complaint contained
USCA11 Case: 22-12037 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 04/18/2023 Page: 4 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12037
“conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts”; and (3) he failed to
clearly describe the basis for each of his claims, specifically noting
that because he referenced three different notes, it was hard to dis-
cern what basis upon which his breach of contract claim rested.
The district court also found that Abdulla willfully disobeyed its
prior order by filing the amended complaint without correcting
identified issues and that, for the above reasons, dismissal with prej-
udice was an appropriate remedy. Abdulla timely appealed.
II.
Abdulla argues that the district court erred in dismissing his
amended complaint for three reasons. First, he argues the district
court erred in determining that his amended complaint was a shot-
gun pleading. Second, the district court erred in finding that he
willfully disobeyed the court’s prior order. Last, the district court
erred in dismissing his state law claims with prejudice.
First, we review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint as
a shotgun pleading for abuse of discretion. Barmapov v. Amuial,
986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021). A complaint must contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim” showing that the plaintiff is
entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Further, claims should be
stated “in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable
to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
Shotgun pleadings include complaints that: (1) contain
“multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all pre-
ceding counts”; (2) are “replete with conclusory, vague, and
USCA11 Case: 22-12037 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 04/18/2023 Page: 5 of 7
22-12037 Opinion of the Court 5
immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of
action”; (3) do not separate each cause of action or claim for relief
into separate counts; or (4) assert “multiple claims against multiple
defendants without specifying which of the defendants are respon-
sible for which acts or omissions.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off.,
792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015). All of these
types of shotgun pleadings are characterized by their failure “to
give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and
the grounds upon which each claim rests.”
Id. at 1323.
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dis-
missing Abdulla’s amended complaint as a shotgun pleading. Ab-
dulla’s amended complaint fits into two of the categories enumer-
ated above. First, Abdulla incorporated his first count into his sec-
ond count. Although we recognize that this may not be the most
egregious manifestation of a shotgun pleading, our case law states
that a complaint with many counts that incorporate all preceding
counts is a shotgun complaint. See Ambrosia Coal & Constr. Co.
v. Morales,
368 F.3d 1320, 1330–31 n.22 (11th Cir. 2004). Second,
Abdulla’s amended complaint contains numerous conclusory,
vague, and immaterial facts. For example, Abdulla discusses bids
he made on foreclosed properties and the sale of those properties,
including financing and down-payment information. He also in-
cludes allegations about advice counsel allegedly gave to Southern
Bank. Further, Abdulla’s breach-of-contract claim identifies
breaches of multiple contracts in one breach of contract claim.
While we recognize that Abdulla’s amended complaint is not the
USCA11 Case: 22-12037 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 04/18/2023 Page: 6 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 22-12037
most egregious shotgun pleading, it is nonetheless a shotgun plead-
ing, and our review is confined to searching for an abuse of discre-
tion.
Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by dismissing with prejudice Abdulla’s amended com-
plaint as a shotgun pleading. 2 Having made this determination, we
decline to further decide whether the court abused its discretion by
dismissing Abdulla’s amended complaint with prejudice for violat-
ing its prior order.
Abdulla relied on our case in Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets,
878 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2018) to argue that the district court should
not have dismissed his state law claims—what amounted to, after
the dismissal of his federal claims, his entire amended complaint.
Vibe Micro is distinguishable from the case we face here, however.
In Vibe Micro, we concluded that when a district court dismisses
an entire action that includes pendant state claims, it should ordi-
narily dismiss the pendant state claims without prejudice to that
they may be refiled in the appropriate state court.
Id. at 1296–97.
2 It is true that “while this circuit’s shotgun-pleading rule applies to everyone,
we ordinarily give pro se litigants more leeway when it comes to drafting.”
Pinson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
942 F.3d 1200, 1208 (11th Cir.
2019). However, like other litigants, if a pro se litigant files an amended com-
plaint without substantially fixing the identified deficiencies in the original
complaint, dismissal with prejudice may be warranted. See Jackson v. Bank of
Am., N.A.,
898 F.3d 1348, 1358–59 (11th Cir. 2018). Here, the district court
gave Abdulla another opportunity, and he failed to fix the deficiencies.
USCA11 Case: 22-12037 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 04/18/2023 Page: 7 of 7
22-12037 Opinion of the Court 7
Here, Abdulla’s case is distinguishable. Abdulla’s amended com-
plaint contained no federal law claims, and he asserted diversity ju-
risdiction as the basis for his claims being in federal court. His state
law claims were not based on supplemental jurisdiction like in Vibe
Micro.
Thus, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Abdulla’s
amended complaint.
AFFIRMED.
