MURZIKE

v.

WILLIAMS

Plaintiff, James T. Murzike, an inmate of the Florida penal system, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on a complaint for the violation of civil rights (Doc. 1; Compl.). In his forty-page complaint, Plaintiff names thirtythree Defendants for violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Compl. at 3, 12-17.1 Plaintiff’s handwriting is difficult to read and his allegations confusing at times. It appears his primary claims

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” that amount to “naked assertions” will not suffice. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Moreover, a complaint must “contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F. 3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting In re Plywood Antitrust Litig., 655 F. 2d 627, 641 (5th Cir. Unit A Sept. 8, 1981)). In reviewing a complaint, a court must accept the plaintiff’s allegations as true, liberally construing those by a plaintiff proceeding pro se,

but need not accept as true legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a plaintiff to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). All averments of the claim should be made “in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). “Complaints that violate either

Rule 8(a) or Rule 10(b), or both, are often disparagingly referred to as ‘shotgun pleadings,’” or ones that fail to give the named 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, 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015). “The ‘self-evident’ purpose of these rules is ‘to require the pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly, so that his adversary can discern what he is claiming and frame a responsive pleading.’” Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F. 3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021) (alteration omitted) (quoting Weiland, 792 F. 3d at 1320). Additionally, a plaintiff may not join unrelated claims and various defendants in one complaint unless the claims arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and if “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). As recognized by the Eleventh Circuit, “a claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence if there is a ‘logical relationship’ between the claims.” Constr. Aggregates, Ltd. v. Forest Commodities Corp., 147 F. 3d 1334, 1337 n.6 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting Republic Health Corp. v. Lifemark Hosps. of Florida, Inc., 755 F. 2d 1453, 1455 (11th Cir. 1985)).

Plaintiff’s complaint constitutes a “shotgun pleading”: his allegations are not short and plain, but rather he includes unnecessary and extraneous information. Although Plaintiff sets forth his claims and allegations “in numbered paragraphs,” many of his allegations are conclusory, and, at times,

he lumps multiple Defendants together (including saying “etc.”), without plainly setting forth the basis of his separate claims against the individuals mentioned. See, e.g., Compl. at 20, 21, 29. If this complaint were to be served, Defendants would have a difficult time “fram[ing] a responsive pleading.”

Barmapov, 986 F. 3d at 1324. Moreover, Plaintiff attempts to proceed on claims against different individuals based on incidents that appear to have no logical connection to one another. Because Plaintiff’s complaint is a shotgun pleading, it is due to be dismissed. However, the Court will afford him an opportunity to amend his complaint. If plaintiff wants to proceed, he may do so on only one claim or related claims. For instance, he may proceed on a claim for excessive force or deliberate indifference based on the incident that occurred on December 22,

2022, against those who participated in the use-of-force, failed to intervene, or denied him adequate medical care. Claims that are not logically related to those arising out of the December 22, 2022 incident must be pursued in a separate civil rights action. Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion that multiple prison officials were motivated to treat him badly because he filed grievances and lawsuits is not enough, without more, to demonstrate the different incidents of which he complains are logically related to one another. If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must do so in compliance with federal pleading standards and the instructions in this Order and the Civil Rights Complaint Form. Specifically, in section IV, “Statement of Claim,” Plaintiff must plainly and clearly describe how each defendant was involved in an alleged violation. The allegations should be stated in numbered paragraphs, each limited to a single set of circumstances. Plaintiff may attach additional pages, if necessary, but the Court urges him to set forth the relevant facts and claims in the spaces provided in the Civil Rights Complaint Form. If

Plaintiff limits his claims to only those that are related, the spaces provided in the form should be more than sufficient. Additionally, in section V, “Injuries,” Plaintiff should clearly state how each defendant’s conduct or omission injured him.

Plaintiff must sign and date the amended complaint after the following statement on the form: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that this complaint: (1) is not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) is supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 11.

Before signing the amended complaint, Plaintiff must ensure his assertions are truthful and he has not knowingly made false material declarations. He must neither exaggerate nor distort the facts but instead must truthfully state the facts underlying his claims. Knowingly making a false material declaration in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both. An amended complaint supersedes the filing of the initial complaint and becomes the operative pleading. Krinsk v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 654 F. 3d 1194, 1202 (11th Cir. 2011). Thus, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete, including all related claims he wishes to raise, and must not refer to his original complaint. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. If Plaintiff wants to proceed, he must submit an amended complaint by October 20, 2023.

3. If Plaintiff does not submit an amended complaint in compliance with federal pleading standards by October 20, 2023, this action may be dismissed without prejudice. 4, The Clerk shall send Plaintiff a Civil Rights Complaint Form (Prisoner Complaint). 5. Given the Court directs Plaintiff to amend his complaint, Plaintiff's request for a copy of his complaint (Doc. 5) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff a copy of his complaint (Doc. 1) with this Order. The Court cautions Plaintiff that future requests for copies must be accompanied by the appropriate payment. See Notice (Doc. 3). Any future request that does not include payment will be denied. 6. The Clerk shall remove from the docket document 6, which Plaintiff filed on September 11, 2023. Unless otherwise ordered, discovery does not begin until the Court enters a scheduling order. Additionally, discoveryrelated documents should not be filed unless the Court needs them to decide a motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1){A). DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 19th day of September 2023.

Zi NO - KM) Armas

United States District Judge

Jax-6 c: James T. Murzike