ADEBIYI v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Page 1 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
ADENIKE ADEBIYI,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 4:25-cv-212-RH/MJF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because 	Plaintiff 	has 	failed 	to 	properly 	serve 	the 	Florida
Department of Health, and because Plaintiff’s second amended complaint
violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the District Court should
dismiss this civil action without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
A. 	Plaintiff Commences this Civil Action
On November 7, 2024, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, commenced
this civil action against four Defendants. Doc. 1. Also on that date, the
Case 4:25-cv-00212-RH-MJF Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 15

Page 2 of 15
clerk of that court issued summonses for Defendants. Doc. 3. Plaintiff
was required to serve process on or before February 5, 2025.
On January 31, 2025, three of the four Defendants—John Tanner,
Jack Abramson, and Miranda Bullington—filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for insufficient process of service. Doc. 9. On April 25, 2025,
United States District Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. denied Defendants’
motion to dismiss without prejudice. Doc. 11. Also on that date, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, Judge Carter transferred this action to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Doc. 12.
B. 	The Undersigned’s Order to Amend the Complaint
Because Plaintiff’s complaint was not on the court-approved form
and Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 8 and Rule 10 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, on May 12, 2025, the undersigned ordered
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that corrected various deficiencies.
Doc. 17.
C. 	Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and the Undersigned’s
Second Order to Amend
On July 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint. Doc.
21. 	Plaintiff’s 	first 	amended 	complaint 	did 	not 	comply 	with 	the
undersigned’s order dated May 12, 2025. Because Plaintiff is proceeding
Case 4:25-cv-00212-RH-MJF Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 15

Page 3 of 15
pro se and it appeared Plaintiff was having difficulty obtaining copies of
the court’s orders, the undersigned afforded Plaintiff another opportunity
to correct the procedural defects with an amended complaint. Doc. 22.
D. 	The District Court’s Order to File an Amended Complaint
On September 2, 2025, the District Court ordered the clerk of the
court to email Plaintiff copies of the undersigned’s orders in PDF format.
Additionally, the District Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint that complied with the undersigned’s orders. Doc. 28.
E. 	Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
On October 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed her second amended complaint.
Doc. 29. In the section titled “Introduction,” Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendants’ “egregious conduct” violated Plaintiff’s First–, Fourth–, and
Fourteenth– Amendment rights. Id. at 5. In the section titled “Statement
of Claims,” however, Plaintiff lists the following claims:
 “Sexual Harassment”;
 “Retaliation” pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 and Fla. Stat. §
760.10;
 “Deprivation of Liberty and Property Interests without Due
Process”;
Case 4:25-cv-00212-RH-MJF Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 15

Page 4 of 15
 “42 U.S.C. § 1983—First Amendment Retaliation (Against
Defendant 	[INDIVIDUAL 	DEFENDANT] 	in 	individual
capacity)”; and
 “42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Fourteenth Amendment (Stigma-Plus).”
Id. at 7–10.
F. 	The Undersigned’s Order to Show Cause
Because Plaintiff had not filed “proof of service” on the Florida
Department of Health, on February 20, 2026, the undersigned ordered
Plaintiff to: (1) show cause why this case should not be dismissed; and (2)
identify all actions Plaintiff took, if any, to effect service of process on the
Florida Department of Health.
G. 	Plaintiff’s Response to the Show-Cause Order
On March 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed her response. Plaintiff states that
“Defendants have agreed to accept service of process via email,” and that
this agreement was reached during a state administrative hearing. Doc.
41 ¶¶ 7, 25. Plaintiff states that, pursuant to this agreement, she emailed
copies of the complaint and summonses to the Florida Department of
Health Consumer Protection email address. Id. ¶ 28. Plaintiff also states
on November 28, 2024, she sent an email with the case summons to all
Case 4:25-cv-00212-RH-MJF Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 4 of 15

Page 5 of 15
“known attorneys on the case and the Florida Department of Health.” Id.
¶ 30.
Plaintiff, however, does not indicate:
 	which Defendant(s) purportedly agreed to accept service of
process via email;
 	when the Defendant(s) agreed to accept service via email;
 	whether this purported agreement to accept service via email
related only to the state administrative proceedings, this
federal civil action, or both; and
 	whether Plaintiff served the chief executive officer of the
Department 	of 	Health, 	as 	required 	by 	Fla. 	Statutes 	§
48.111(2).
H. 	The District Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Claims Against the
Individual Defendants
On March 26, 2026, the District Court granted Tanner, Abramson,
and Bullington’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process and
dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against these three Defendants. Docs. 42 &
43. The sole remaining Defendant is the Florida Department of Health.
DISCUSSION
A. 	Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint Fails to Comply with
Rule 8 and Rule 10
A civil complaint filed in federal court must contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
Case 4:25-cv-00212-RH-MJF Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 5 of 15

Page 6 of 15
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Furthermore, “each claim founded on a
separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count
or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). The purpose of these rules is “to require
the 	pleader 	to 	present 	his 	claims 	discretely 	and 	succinctly” 	so 	the
opposing party and the court can discern the nature of the plaintiff’s
claims. 	Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021)
(quoting Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320
(11th Cir. 2015)). “A so-called ‘shotgun pleading’ is a complaint that
violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or 10(b), or both.” Toth
v. Antonacci, 788 F. App’x 688, 690 (11th Cir. 2019).
“A district court has the ‘inherent authority to control its docket and
ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits,’ which includes the ability to
dismiss a complaint on shotgun pleading grounds.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v.
Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Weiland, 792
F.3d at 1320). A district court that receives a shotgun pleading must sua
sponte give a plaintiff “one chance to remedy such deficiencies.” Id. But
once a pro se litigant has been given that opportunity to remedy the
deficiencies and squanders the opportunity by filing another shotgun
pleading, the district court has the authority to dismiss the complaint on
Case 4:25-cv-00212-RH-MJF Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 6 of 15

Page 7 of 15
shotgun pleading grounds. Id. at 1295–96; Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d
1075, 1133 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Foudy v. Indian River Cnty. Sheriff’s
Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (“Federal courts possess an
inherent power to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a court
order.”) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff’s second amended complaint violates the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and is a so-called “shotgun pleading” in two respects.
1. 	Plaintiff 	Impermissibly 	Adopts 	and 	Realleges
Allegations that are Irrelevant to Various Claims
First, 	Plaintiff’s 	second 	amended 	complaint 	contains 	“multiple
counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts,
causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last
count to be a combination of the entire complaint.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at
1321. For example, in Plaintiff’s claims titled “42 U.S.C. § 1983 – First
Amendment Retaliation (Against Defendant [Individual Defendant] in
Individual 	Capacity”; 	“42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1983 	– 	Fourteenth 	Amendment
(Procedural Due Process) (Against All Defendants)”; and “42 U.S.C. §
1983 – Fourteenth Amendment (Stigma Plus),” Plaintiff incorporated all
preceding 	and 	several 	subsequent 	paragraphs. 	Doc. 	29 	¶ 	10
(incorporating by reference paragraphs 1–19); id. ¶ 16 (incorporating by
Case 4:25-cv-00212-RH-MJF Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 7 of 15

Page 8 of 15
reference 	paragraphs 	1–25); 	id. 	¶ 	21 	(incorporating 	all 	preceding
paragraphs).
As a result of Plaintiff’s incorporation of multiple paragraphs of the
second 	amended 	complaint, 	“each 	count 	is 	replete 	with 	factual
allegations that could not possibly be material to that specific count, and
. . . any allegations that are material are buried beneath innumerable
pages of rambling irrelevancies.” Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282,
1284 (11th Cir. 2001). This plainly violates the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Id.; Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321–22.
2. 	Plaintiff Failed to Specify the Defendant(s) Responsible
for Particular Acts or Omissions and Which Claims
Plaintiff Asserts Against the Department of Health
Second, 	Plaintiff 	asserts 	“multiple 	claims 	against 	multiple
defendants without specifying which of the defendants are responsible
for which acts or omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is
brought against.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323. For example, Plaintiff
asserts a claim of “Sexual Harassment.” Doc. 29 at 7. Plaintiff, however,
failed to identify which defendant the claim is being asserted against. Id.
She also failed to identify which facts support this claim. Id.
Case 4:25-cv-00212-RH-MJF Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 8 of 15

Page 9 of 15
Similarly, Plaintiff asserts a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Id. at 5. Plaintiff again fails to identify any facts to support a Fourth-
Amendment 	claim. 	Id. 	She 	also 	failed 	to 	identify 	which 	Defendant
allegedly violated the Fourth Amendment. Id.
True, only one Defendant remains. But Plaintiff filed her second
amended 	complaint 	before 	the 	District 	Court 	dismissed 	the 	claims
against the individual Defendants, and Plaintiff attempted to assert
claims against four Defendants in her second amended complaint. In that
complaint, Plaintiff repeatedly identifies “Defendants” as the relevant
actors, as opposed to identifying a particular Defendant as the relevant
subject of some of Plaintiff’s allegations. Doc. 29 ¶¶ 12, 22, 24–25.
3. 	Dismissal Without Prejudice is Appropriate
The undersigned explained to Plaintiff that her original complaint
violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and constituted a so-called
“shotgun pleading.” Doc. 17. The undersigned also explained to Plaintiff
how to correct the defects and provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to
submit a complaint that complies with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Docs. 17, 22, 28. Plaintiff failed to comply with
Case 4:25-cv-00212-RH-MJF Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 9 of 15

Page 10 of 15
the order and instead filed another impermissible “shotgun pleading.”
Doc. 29.
Because Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to comply with
Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—even after the
undersigned 	afforded 	Plaintiff 	an 	opportunity 	to 	correct 	these
deficiencies—the District Court should dismiss this civil action.
B. 	Plaintiff Failed to Serve the Department of Health Timely
A plaintiff “is responsible for having the summons and complaint
served on the defendant” in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Fitzpatrick v. Bank of New York Mellon, 580 F. App’x
690, 693 (11th Cir. 2014); Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Com’rs, 476
F.3d 1277, 1280–81 (11th Cir. 2007). Thus, a plaintiff must ensure that
service is completed within the limits set forth by Rule 4(m). Lepone-
Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1280–81.
Rule 4(m) states:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint
is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the
plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against
that 	defendant 	or 	order 	that 	service 	be 	made 	within 	a
specified time.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Case 4:25-cv-00212-RH-MJF Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 10 of 15

Page 11 of 15
Under Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, service on
the Florida Department of Health can be accomplished by “delivering a
copy of the summons and of the complaint to its chief executive officer”
or serving a copy of the complaint and summons in the manner prescribed
by Florida law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(A)–(B). The term “delivering” refers to
personal service. See Dyer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 318 F. App’x 843, 844
(11th Cir. 2009) (noting that “[t]he term ‘delivering’ appears to refer to
personal service.”). If “a waiver of service has not been obtained from the
defendant and filed with the court, service must be made personally on
the defendant.” Abele v. City of Brooksville, 273 F. App’x 809, 810 (11th
Cir. 2008)
Section 48.111(2), Florida Statutes, provides that “[p]rocess against
any . . . department shall be served on . . . the chief executive officer of
the . . . department.”
1. 	Plaintiff Fails to Demonstrate that She Timely and
Properly Served Defendant
A plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that a defendant was
served properly. Fitzpatrick, 580 F. App’x at 693; Lepone-Dempsey, 476
F.3d at 1280–81; Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996); Saez
Rivera v. Nissan Mfg. Co., 788 F.2d 819, 821 n.2 (1st Cir. 1986); Aetna
Case 4:25-cv-00212-RH-MJF Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 11 of 15

Page 12 of 15
Bus. Credit, Inc. v. Universal Decor & Interior Design, Inc., 635 F.2d 434,
435 (5th Cir. Unit A Jan. 1981). “Unless service is waived, proof of service
must be made to the court. Except for service by a United States marshal
or deputy marshal, proof must be by the server’s affidavit.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(l)(1).
Here, Plaintiff failed to file proof of service regarding service of the
Florida Department of Health. Plaintiff asserts that she effected service
by email, but Rule 4(j) and Florida law does not authorize service on a
state agency via email.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s vague and conclusory assertion that some
unspecified person, at some unspecified time, regarding some unspecified
administrative hearing, agreed to accept by email service of unspecified
documents, is insufficient to satisfy Rule 4.
Also, Plaintiff’s argument that the Florida Department of Health
knows of this civil action does not save the day: “A defendant’s actual
notice is not sufficient to cure defectively executed service.” Albra v.
Advan, 490 F.3d 826, 828 (11th Cir. 2007).
2. 	An 	Extension 	of 	Time 	for 	Plaintiff 	to 	Serve 	the
Department of Health is Not Warranted
Case 4:25-cv-00212-RH-MJF Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 12 of 15

Page 13 of 15
Plaintiff has not shown good cause for her failure to serve the
Florida Department of Health. Good cause to extend the deadline for
service exists “only when some outside factor[,] such as reliance on faulty
advice, 	rather 	than 	inadvertence 	or 	negligence 	prevented 	service.”
Lepone-Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1281 (citing Prisco v. Frank, 929 F.2d 603,
604 (11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam), superseded in part by rule as stated in
Horenkamp v. Vanwinkle and Co., Inc., 402 F.3d 1129, 1132 n.2 (11th
Cir. 2005)). In determining whether good cause exists, “[c]ourts will look
to ‘factors outside a plaintiff’s control, such as sudden illness, natural
catastrophe or evasion of service of process,’ to determine whether [the
plaintiff] satisfied the ‘good cause’ requirement.” Gambino v. Village of
Oakbrook, 164 F.R.D. 271, 274 (M.D. Fla. 1995) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff’s response fails to establish that any factor outside her control
prevented service on Defendant.
Even in the “absence of good cause,” a “district court has the
discretion to extend the time for service of process.” Lepone-Dempsey, 476
F.3d 	at 	1281. 	In 	determining 	whether 	a 	permissive 	extension 	is
warranted, courts look at the factors set forth in the advisory committee
notes to Rule 4. Horenkamp, 402 F.3d at 1132–33. For example, “relief
Case 4:25-cv-00212-RH-MJF Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 13 of 15

Page 14 of 15
may be justified . . . if the applicable statute of limitations would bar the
refiled action, or if the defendant is evading service or conceals a defect
in 	attempted 	service.” 	Id. 	(quoting 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	4(m) 	advisory
committee note to 1993 amendments). Plaintiff’s response to the show
cause order does not indicate that Defendant evaded service or concealed
a defect in attempted service.
Although the statute of limitation may bar Plaintiff from refiling in
this case, this “does not require that the district court extend time for
service of process under Rule 4(m).” Lepone-Dempsey, 476 F.3d at 1282.
This case is more than one year old. Plaintiff still has not effected service
of process consistent with Rule 4(j) despite the undersigned putting
Plaintiff on notice that she has failed to demonstrate proper service of
process. Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a plaintiff’s pro se status
does not entitle her to ignore the requirement of Rule 4, including the
requirement that she effect service timely. Kersh v. Derozier, 851 F.2d
1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1988); Lowe v. Hart, 157 F.R.D. 550, 553 (M.D. Fla.
1994).
Case 4:25-cv-00212-RH-MJF Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 14 of 15

Page 15 of 15
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this civil action without prejudice.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 9th day of April, 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to
these proposed findings and recommendations must be
filed within fourteen days of the date of the report and
recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may
appear 	on 	the 	electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s
internal use only and does not control. An objecting
party must serve a copy of the objections on all other
parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate
judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a
report 	and 	recommendation 	waives 	the 	right 	to
challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th
Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 4:25-cv-00212-RH-MJF Document 44 Filed 04/09/26 Page 15 of 15