Case: 14-14032 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14032
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-01623-TWT
ELISHA GILBERT, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FREDERICK L. DANIELS, JR.,
Chairman, DeKalb County,
BARBARA BABBIT KAUFMAN,
Vice Chairman, Fulton County,
HAROLD BUCKLEY, SR.,
Treasurer, DeKalb County,
JUANITA JONES ABERNATHY,
Secretary, City of Atlanta,
ROBERT L. ASHE, III,
City of Atlanta, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
ADAM ORKIN,
Fulton County, et al.,
Defendants.
Case: 14-14032 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 2 of 6
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(August 28, 2015)
Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pro se plaintiff-appellant Elisha Gilbert appeals from the district court’s
dismissal of his civil rights complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On
appeal, Gilbert reiterates the merits of his claims and argues that the district court
erred by dismissing his complaint because the defendants were not entitled to any
forms of immunity.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and
construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 872 (11th Cir. 2008). We liberally construe the pleadings of pro se
parties, Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir.), cert.
denied, 135 S. Ct. 759 (2014), but pro se litigants still must conform to procedural
rules, Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).
Rule 8(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., requires a complaint to include “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
2
Case: 14-14032 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 3 of 6
Although there is no “technical form,” the plaintiff’s allegations “must be simple,
concise, and direct.” Id. 8(d)(1). The purpose of Rule 8(a)(2)’s requirement is “to
give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964
(2007) (ellipsis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted); see Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (“[T]he pleading standard
Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it demands
more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1964)).
To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (internal quotation marks omitted). Where it
appears that a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, a pro se
plaintiff “must be given at least one chance to amend the complaint before the
district court dismisses the action with prejudice.” See Bank v. Pitt, 928 F.2d 1108,
1112 (11th Cir. 1991), overruled in part by Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am.
Corp., 314 F.3d 541, 542 (11th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (holding that this rule does not
apply to counseled plaintiffs). But the district court need not grant leave to amend
3
Case: 14-14032 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 4 of 6
“where amendment would be futile.” Corsello v. Lincare, Inc., 428 F.3d 1008,
1014 (11th Cir. 2005); see Bank, 928 F.2d at 1112-13.
Here, Gilbert filed a “shotgun” pleading. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty.
Sheriff’s Office, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 13-14396, 2015 WL 4098270, at *4-5
(11th Cir. July 8, 2015) (explaining and categorizing shotgun pleadings). His
complaint names thirty-two defendants but does not identify which defendant is
responsible for what alleged constitutional violation. Additionally, the complaint
is not divided into separate paragraphs, each describing a “single set of
circumstances,” as required by the rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). The
defendants’ various motions to dismiss raised multiple grounds for dismissal,
including failure to state a claim, several types of immunity, insufficient service of
process, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine1, and the defense that the complaint was a
shotgun pleading that failed to give fair notice of the claims raised.
The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, but it gave
little indication of its reasoning for doing so. The court concluded simply as
follows: “The Plaintiff fails to allege a plausible claim for relief. The Defendants’
Motions to Dismiss [Doc. 6, 7, 8 & 9] are GRANTED. This action is
DISMISSED.” Although the court cited Iqbal and Twombly and found that Gilbert
1
The Rooker–Feldman doctrine derives from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company, 263
U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
4
Case: 14-14032 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 5 of 6
failed to state a claim, it did not address any of the allegations or explain how they
failed to meet Rule 8(a)(2)’s pleading standard.
“Many times, and in many contexts, this Court has admonished district
courts that their orders should contain sufficient explanations of their rulings so as
to provide this Court with an opportunity to engage in meaningful appellate
review.” Danley v. Allen, 480 F.3d 1090, 1091 (11th Cir. 2007). The district
court’s order in this case is “devoid of any facts and any legal analysis.” Id. As
such, it is difficult for this Court to conduct a meaningful review. See id. 1091-92.
Moreover, the district court dismissed the complaint without giving Gilbert
the opportunity to amend his complaint or finding that amendment would be futile.
See Corsello, 428 F.3d at 1014; Bank, 928 F.2d at 1112. And at no time before
dismissing the action did the court advise Gilbert of the deficiencies in his
complaint and instruct him to file an amended complaint. Where allegations are
vague and ambiguous and the defendants and court must guess at precisely what
the claims are, the court should require the plaintiff to replead his claims. See
Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1128-33 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(e) (permitting the court to order repleader).
It is “the responsibility of the district court in the first instance” to review the
record and render a reasoned decision on the sufficiency of the allegations in
Gilbert’s complaint. Danley, 480 F.3d at 1092. Accordingly, we vacate the
5
Case: 14-14032 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 6 of 6
dismissal of Gilbert’s complaint and we remand for the district court to develop the
record and determine, in the first instance, whether Gilbert should be instructed to
replead his claims or whether amendment would be futile.
VACATED and REMANDED.
6