USCA11 Case: 23-10452 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2023 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10452
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
DAVID TIMOTHY JOHNSON, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
URVASHI FOSTER,
an individual,
BILLIE JOE FOSTER,
an individual,
DEPUTY BROOKS,
Badge # 203, Georgetown-Quitman County
Sheriff Department, an individual,
GOD AND GOD ALONE LLC,
a limited liability corporation,
MAGISTRATE COURT OF GEORGETOWN-QUITMAN
USCA11 Case: 23-10452 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2023 Page: 2 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10452
COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 4:21-cv-00219-CDL
____________________
Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
David Johnson, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint and denial of his two Rule 60 motions to
vacate. The district court gave him a chance to file an amended
complaint and instructions for how to cure his pleading deficien-
cies, but his amended complaint still fell short of the pleading re-
quirements in federal court. For the reasons explained below, the
district court was well within its discretion to dismiss his complaint
with prejudice and Johnson has abandoned any challenge to the de-
nial of his motions to vacate. We affirm.
I.
Johnson sued multiple private and government actors over
what appears to be a landlord-tenant lawsuit in state court. He al-
leges he was mistreated by a state magistrate judge and
USCA11 Case: 23-10452 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2023 Page: 3 of 6
23-10452 Opinion of the Court 3
discriminated against based on his race, sex, religion, age, and dis-
ability. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and the dis-
trict court held that Johnson’s complaint was a shotgun pleading
that failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)
and 10(b). The district court instructed Johnson how to cure his
pleading deficiencies and gave him twenty-eight days to file an
amended complaint.
Johnson failed to cure those deficiencies, and the district
court dismissed Johnson’s amended complaint because it again de-
termined it was a shotgun pleading that violated Rules 8(a)(2) and
10(b). It held that (1) the allegations were conclusory, vague, and
contained immaterial facts that were not connected to a specific
cause of action, (2) the amended complaint failed to separate each
cause of action into a different count and treated the defendants as
a collective unit for the majority of the claims, and (3) Johnson
made no effort to clearly assert each claim, supported by allega-
tions, against each defendant.
Johnson then filed two motions to vacate that judgment un-
der Rule 60 due to his neglect, the district court’s lack of instruc-
tions to cure his pleading deficiencies, his health problems, and the
defendants’ fraud, misrepresentation, and misconduct. The district
court denied both motions because there was no excusable neglect,
it previously provided sufficient instructions to cure his pleading
deficiencies, it accommodated his health problems by allowing him
additional time for some filings, and he failed to identify any fraud,
misconduct, or misrepresentation. He timely appealed.
USCA11 Case: 23-10452 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2023 Page: 4 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10452
II.
We review dismissals of a complaint because it is a shotgun
pleading for abuse of discretion. Barmapov v. Amuial,
986 F.3d 1321,
1324 (11th Cir. 2021). We also review a district court’s denial of a
Rule 60 motion for abuse of discretion. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Nw.
Nat’l Ins. Co.,
198 F.3d 1332, 1338 (11th Cir. 1999). While we read
briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, a pro se litigant is still “subject
to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome,
863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir.
1989).
III.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dis-
missed Johnson’s amended complaint as a shotgun pleading. A
shotgun pleading fails “to give 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). Shotgun pleadings “waste scarce judicial resources,
inexorably broaden the scope of discovery, wreak havoc on appel-
late court dockets, and undermine the public’s respect for the
courts.” Vibe Micro Inc. v. Shabanets,
878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir.
2018).
Characteristics of shotgun pleadings include (1) containing
“multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all pre-
ceding counts,” (2) being “replete with conclusory, vague, and im-
material facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of
USCA11 Case: 23-10452 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2023 Page: 5 of 6
23-10452 Opinion of the Court 5
action,” (3) failing to separate “into a different count each cause of
action or claim for relief,” and (4) asserting “multiple claims against
multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants
are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the defend-
ants the claim is brought against.” Weiland,
792 F.3d at 1321–23.
Further, Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include a short and
plain statement entitling the plaintiff to relief, and Rule 10(b) re-
quires a complaint to state claims in separate, numbered para-
graphs. We require district courts to allow a litigant one chance to
remedy a shotgun pleading. Vibe,
878 F.3d at 1295. If a plaintiff fails
to correct their deficient pleading after that notice, the district
court is well within its discretion to dismiss the case.
Id.
Johnson has failed to establish the district court abused its
discretion when it held that his amended complaint was a shotgun
pleading. Johnson stated no facts to support his claims, failed to
separate his claims into distinct counts, and treated all of the de-
fendants as a collective unit for the majority of the claims. Plus, the
district court had already given Johnson instructions on how to
cure his pleading deficiencies and twenty-eight days to do so. A dis-
trict court has the discretion to dismiss a complaint as a shotgun
pleading, especially after notifying the plaintiff of the deficiencies
and giving him an opportunity to cure them.
Id. The district court
did not abuse that discretion here.
IV.
We need not address the district court’s order denying John-
son’s motions to vacate because Johnson has abandoned any
USCA11 Case: 23-10452 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2023 Page: 6 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 23-10452
challenge to that order on appeal. To avoid abandonment, a party
must plainly identify the issues or claims that they seek to raise on
appeal. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d 678, 680–81
(11th Cir. 2014). A party abandons a claim on appeal when he fails
to “plainly and prominently raise it, for instance by devoting a dis-
crete section of his argument to those claims.”
Id. at 681. We con-
strue a pro se litigant’s briefs liberally, but an issue not briefed on
appeal by a pro se litigant is deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
Johnson’s brief does not mention Rule 60 and makes no ar-
gument as to why the district court abused its discretion in denying
his two motions to vacate. Even construing his brief liberally, we
cannot find that he briefed the issue on appeal. Thus, we need not
address the merits of the district court’s denial of his motions to
vacate.
V.
For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM.
