Case: 14-10480 Date Filed: 04/02/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10480
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cv-00374-EAK-EAJ
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SCHOOL BOARD OF POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SHARON ARNOLD,
Training & Safety Specialist, PCSB Support Services,
LUM THORNHILL, Ms. Sharon Arnold's Supervisor,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 2, 2015)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-10480 Date Filed: 04/02/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Manuel Rodriguez appeals pro se the dismissal with prejudice of his third
amended complaint against the School Board of Polk County, Florida, and its
employees, Sharon Arnold and Lum Thornhill (collectively “the Board”). The
district court dismissed Rodriguez’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Rodriguez’s
third amended complaint. Rodriguez’s complaint is neither short nor plain. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The complaint is a typical shotgun-style pleading that
consists of 93 paragraphs, some of which are repetitive, unintelligible, and replete
with legal conclusions. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.
Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). Rodriguez’s two-count complaint also failed to provide the
School Board fair notice of its alleged wrongdoing. See id. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at
1964. In Count 1, Rodriguez alleged vaguely that the School Board engaged in
“Discriminatory Practices” in violation of “42 U.S.C. . . . § 2000e-2 [Section 703]
and seq.” because it “forg[o]t[] the laws related with the Civil Right of the
Individuals in the employee and in the training . . . [and] made the Wrong
Decision.” And in Count 2, Rodriguez alleged that the School Board committed
“other unlawful Employment Practices” in violation of “42 U.S.C. . . . 2000e-3
[Section 704] seq.” because “he . . . made contradictory charges against Plaintiff.”
The district court told Rodriguez how to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure;
2
Case: 14-10480 Date Filed: 04/02/2015 Page: 3 of 3
urged him to consult with an attorney; and warned him that his failure to comply
would result in the dismissal of his complaint. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d
835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). The district court did not abuse its discretion by
dismissing Rodriguez’s third amended complaint when he failed repeatedly to
amend his complaint in compliance with the rules of procedure. See McNeil v.
United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S. Ct. 1980, 1984 (1993).
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Rodriguez’s complaint.
3