MURRAY
v.
GOVERNOR, STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A pro se plaintiff filed suit against Florida's Governor and Chief Justice alleging constitutional violations. The district court dismissed the initial complaint as a shotgun pleading, but the plaintiff appealed before the deadline to amend, thereby waiving his right to file an amended complaint. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, and the district court subsequently struck the amended complaints and dismissed the case.
By choosing to appeal the dismissal before the amended complaint was due, Plaintiff elected to stand on his initial complaint and waived his right to further amendment. The amended complaints must be stricken, and the case must be dismissed.
[1] A plaintiff who appeals a dismissal of a complaint before the deadline for filing an amended complaint waives the right to further amendment.
[2] An order dismissing a complaint is a final order for purposes of appellate jurisdiction.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“By choosing to appeal, Plaintiff "elected to stand on [his initial complaint] and waived [his] right to further amendment."”
Establishes the core holding that appealing before amendment deadline constitutes waiver of amendment rights
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff initiated this action in July 2023 alleging numerous constitutional violations against the Governor of Florida and the Chief Justice of the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this action in July 2023 by suing Defendants and alleging numerous constitutional violations. (See Dkt. 1.) On February 22, 2024, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading and allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by March 11, 2024. (See Dkt. 26.) Four days later, on February 26, 2024, Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Eleventh Circuit. (See Dkt. 28.) Given the appeal, the court stayed and administratively closed this case. (See Dkt. 30.)
On March 6, 2024, while his appeal was pending, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (See Dkt. 31.) Plaintiff has also filed a second amended complaint. (See Dkt. 38.) On October 15, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the initial complaint. (See Dkts. 36 & 37 (opinion and mandate).) See Murray v. Governor, No. 24-10583, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 25816 (11th Cir. Oct. 15, 2024). In determining
that it had appellate jurisdiction because the order dismissing the initial complaint was a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the Eleventh Circuit explained that Plaintiff "cho[se] to appeal the dismissal of his complaint before the amended complaint [wa]s due." Murray, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 25816, at *6 (citing Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F. 3d 1255, 1260 (11th Cir. 2006)). By choosing to appeal, Plaintiff "elected to stand on [his initial complaint] and waived [his] right to further amendment.” Garfield, 466 F. 3d at 1260–61; accord Schuurman v. Motor Vessel “Betty K V,” 798 F. 2d 442, 445 (11th Cir. 1986) (“Once the plaintiff chooses to appeal before the expiration of time allowed for amendment, ... the plaintiff waives the right to later amend the complaint, even if the time to amend has not yet expired.").
Accordingly:
1. The amended complaint (Dkt. 31) and second amended complaint (Dkt. 38) are
STRICKEN.
2. This case is DISMISSED.
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines.
4. This case remains closed.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on November 7, 2024.
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Unrepresented Parties Counsel of Record