USCA11 Case: 23-10195 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2023 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10195
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
LINCOLN MEMORIAL ACADEMY,
EDDIE HUNDLEY,
MELVIA SCOTT, Dr.,
KATRINA ROSS,
JAUANA PHILLIPS, et. al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF MANATEE COUNTY,
CITY OF PALMETTO, FLORIDA,
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 23-10195 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2023 Page: 2 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10195
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cv-00309-CEH-AAS
____________________
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and WILSON and LUCK, Cir-
cuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Lincoln Memorial Academy, its founder and former princi-
pal Eddie Hundley, and former employees Melvia Scott, Katrina
Ross, Jauana Phillips, and Angella Enrisma appeal the dismissal of
their second amended complaint against the School Board of Man-
atee County, the City of Palmetto, Florida, and the Florida Depart-
ment of Education. The district court dismissed the complaint as a
shotgun pleading and alternatively for failure to state a claim. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court also ruled that the claims
against the Department and its Commissioner were barred by the
Eleventh Amendment. We affirm in part and vacate in part with
instructions to dismiss the complaint against the Department with-
out prejudice.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dis-
missed the second amended complaint against the School Board
and the City as a shotgun pleading. See Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets,
878 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2018). The counseled complaint was
neither short nor plain. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Instead, it was a
USCA11 Case: 23-10195 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2023 Page: 3 of 6
23-10195 Opinion of the Court 3
shotgun pleading that consists of 152 paragraphs, many of which
are replete with vague allegations and legal conclusions that would
leave a defendant reading the complaint hard-pressed to under-
stand “the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Weiland v. Palm
Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office,
792 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015). The
district court explained that the complaint “foreclose[d] any under-
standing of the entity against whom the claims are brought.” In its
first dismissal order, the district court provided examples of the
pleading deficiencies, such as the intermingled allegations of un-
lawful conduct against “all Defendants,” which forced the district
court to “speculate as to the entity against whom the claim [was]
brought.” See
id. at 1320. The district court explained that each
count alleging that the School Board “violated Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and § 1983” left the
district court unable to connect the allegations to the claims or de-
termine whether the plaintiffs alleged “separate Title VII claims or
instead merely offer purported violations of Title VII in support of
their § 1983 claims.” The district court sua sponte granted “one—
and only one—opportunity to cure the shotgun pleading.”
Counsel failed to cure these pleading deficiencies in the sec-
ond amended complaint, which continued to combine multiple
claims within individual counts and intentionally retain vague de-
mands for a judgment against “all Defendants” for compensatory
and punitive damages, despite failing to allege actions or omissions
by each defendant. Because the district court again was left to spec-
ulate about which defendants were implicated in each count, with
its confusion compounded by numerical inconsistencies in the
USCA11 Case: 23-10195 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2023 Page: 4 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10195
paragraph ranges that were incorporated into multiple counts, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the second
amended complaint with prejudice for failing repeatedly to comply
with the rules of procedure. See Jackson v. Bank of America N.A.,
898
F.3d 1348, 1357 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[W]e have repeatedly held that a
District Court retains authority to dismiss a shotgun pleading on
that basis alone.”). Because we affirm on this basis, we do not ad-
dress the alternative ruling that the second amended complaint
failed to state a claim.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in not sua
sponte granting leave to file a third amended complaint. The district
court warned that it would permit “one—and only one—oppor-
tunity to cure the shotgun pleading deficiencies.” And, even if the
time to amend the pleadings under the scheduling order had not
long passed, the plaintiffs had withdrawn their earlier motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint and failed to renew that
request. See Vibe Micro,
878 F.3d at 1296 (“When a litigant files a
shotgun pleading, is represented by counsel, and fails to request
leave to amend, a district court must sua sponte give him one
chance to replead before dismissing his case with prejudice on
non-merits shotgun pleading grounds.” (emphasis added)).
The district court also did not err in ruling that claims
against the Department were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police,
491 U.S. 58, 66, 71 (1989) (“[N]ei-
ther a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘per-
sons’ under § 1983.”). Because the Eleventh Amendment bars the
USCA11 Case: 23-10195 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2023 Page: 5 of 6
23-10195 Opinion of the Court 5
claims against the Department, the district court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over them. See Seaborn v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrs.,
143
F.3d 1405, 1407 (11th Cir. 1998). Without power to render a judg-
ment on the merits, the district court should have dismissed the
complaint against the Department without prejudice instead of
with prejudice. See Stalley ex rel. Orlando Reg’l Healthcare Sys., Inc.,
524 F.3d 1229, 1235 (11th Cir. 2008).
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in sanc-
tioning counsel for failing to comply with discovery orders. A dis-
trict court may impose sanctions when a party fails to “obey an or-
der to provide or permit discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). In re-
viewing discovery motions, “wide discretion is proper because a
judge’s decision as to whether a party or lawyer’s actions merit im-
position of sanctions is heavily dependent on the court’s firsthand
knowledge, experience, and observation.” Consumer Fin. Prot. Bu-
reau v. Brown,
69 F.4th 1321, 1329 (11th Cir. 2023). After holding a
four-hour evidentiary hearing on the School Board’s motion for
sanctions and considering the testimony and evidence presented,
the magistrate judge found that sanctions against counsel were
warranted because he repeatedly failed to respond to discovery re-
quests, even after the district court issued an order compelling pro-
duction. Although counsel argues that the magistrate judge “im-
permissibly rejected” his evidence of mitigating circumstances and
good faith, we discern no clear error in the magistrate judge’s find-
ing. See
id.
USCA11 Case: 23-10195 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2023 Page: 6 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 23-10195
We AFFIRM in part the dismissal with prejudice of the sec-
ond amended complaint against the School Board and the City and
the award of sanctions against counsel, and we VACATE and
REMAND in part with instructions to dismiss the complaint
against the Department without prejudice.
