Mamberto Real v. Judith Moran, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12770
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
MAMBERTO REAL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JUDITH MORAN,
FRANK DIAZ GINES,
PRESBYTERIAN HOMES & HOUSING
FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12770 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 10/19/2023 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12770
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00926-JLB-KCD
____________________
Before LAGOA, BRASHER , and BLACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mamberto Real, proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s order dismissing, with prejudice, his claims of national
origin discrimination pursuant to the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42
U.S.C. § 3604; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. §
2000d; and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617. He asserts
the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his complaint
as a shotgun pleading. He maintains the dismissal was improper
due to an earlier grant of leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
that he asserts creates a conflict of interpretation between a
magistrate judge and the district court. After review, we affirm the
district court.
Shotgun pleadings “waste scarce judicial resources,
inexorably broaden the scope of discovery, wreak havoc on
appellate court dockets, and undermine the public’s respect for the
courts.” Vibe Micro Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir.
2008) (quotation marks and alterations omitted). Shotgun
pleadings include complaints that: (1) contain multiple counts
where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts; (2)
are replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not
USCA11 Case: 22-12770 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 10/19/2023 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

22-12770 Opinion of the Court 3
obviously connected to any particular cause of action; (3) do not
separate each cause of action or claim for relief into separate
counts; or (4) assert multiple claims against multiple defendants
without specifying which of the defendants are responsible for
which acts or omissions. Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Off., 792
F.3d 1313, 1321-23 (11th Cir. 2015). All these types of shotgun
pleadings are characterized by their failure “to give the defendants
adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon
which each claim rests.” Id. at 1323.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing
Real’s complaint as a shotgun pleading. See id. at 1320 (reviewing
the district court’s dismissal of a complaint on shotgun pleading
grounds for abuse of discretion). As the district court found, Real’s
complaint has aspects of the first and second forms of shotgun
pleadings as each count adopts allegations of the preceding counts
and the complaint contains vague and conclusory allegations.
The complaint contained seven counts, each
reincorporating by reference the allegations set out in paragraphs
1 through 36. While the reincorporations appear to be limited to
the “factual allegations” portion of his complaint, the last five
paragraphs (paragraphs 32 through 36) of Real’s factual allegations
are legal conclusions, and Real merges the same legal claims into
each of the seven counts. Thus, by realleging paragraphs 32
through 36 into each count of the complaint, Real cumulatively
restates allegations of retaliation and discrimination throughout his
complaint, making it “virtually impossible to know which
USCA11 Case: 22-12770 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 10/19/2023 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-12770
allegations . . . are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.”
See Anderson v. District Bd. of Trustees of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d
364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996).
Real’s complaint also contained conclusory and vague
language and facts that could not be clearly attributed to any
particular cause of action. See Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1322. Real
alleged retaliation during the rental process throughout his
complaint. Stating a claim for retaliatory housing discrimination
requires a plaintiff to allege the defendants coerced, intimidated,
threatened, or interfered with his exercise of rights under the FHA.
42 U.S.C. § 3617. Real pleads the elements of a claim under § 3617
without explaining how the facts of his case correlate to the
elements of the cause of action. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”).
Additionally, the many unsupported assertions within the
complaint fail to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims
against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests. See
Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323.
The district court did not err by dismissing Real’s complaint
and exercising its inherent authority to control its dockets. See Vibe
Micro Inc., 878 F.3d at 1295 (“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.” (quotation marks omitted)). The
instant complaint represents Real’s fourth attempt to cure his
USCA11 Case: 22-12770 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 10/19/2023 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

22-12770 Opinion of the Court 5
defective complaint, taking into account three complaints he filed
in an earlier, almost identical proceeding, followed by the present
suit. The record supports that Real received ample guidance from
both the magistrate judge and the district court as to how to
organize his pleadings.
Moreover, Real does not argue on appeal that the district
court should not have dismissed the complaint without first
granting him leave to amend it, so any issue in that respect is
forfeited. See United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 871-72 (11th
Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 95 (2022) (explaining issues
not raised in a brief are forfeited). Likewise, Real asked the district
court to dismiss his instant complaint with prejudice if it deemed
the filing a shotgun pleading, so he could seek review from this
Court. In any event, his litigation history suggests that any further
attempt to amend would have been futile. Finally, the magistrate
judge’s determination that Real could proceed IFP did not preclude
a later determination to dismiss the complaint. See Cofield v. Ala.
Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512, 515 (11th Cir. 1991) (recognizing
that despite the fact a court may have reviewed a complaint and
granted IFP status when the complaint was initially filed, the court
may dismiss the complaint at a later date if the court determines
the action is frivolous). Accordingly, we affirm.1
AFFIRMED.
1 We DENY Real’s Motion to Expedite Appeal as moot.
USCA11 Case: 22-12770 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 10/19/2023 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --