JACKSON v. PERKINS et al

Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
DAUVIEL JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv1325-AW-HTC
K. PERKINS, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Dauviel Jackson, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
has filed a second amended civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 23.
After reviewing the second amended complaint, the undersigned concludes it should
be DISMISSED without prejudice because it is a shotgun pleading.
I. 	Background
Jackson initiated this action by filing a 31-page complaint on August 1, 2025,
that: (1) named approximately 60 Santa Rosa Correctional Institution (“SRCI”)
employees as Defendants; (2) contained allegations about a variety of incidents that
occurred at SRCI between March 2023 and May 2025; and (3) brought at least 45
claims related to those incidents. Doc. 1. The Court screened the complaint and, on
October 29, 2025, issued an order that identified a non-exhaustive list of the
complaint’s deficiencies. See Doc. 15 (noting the complaint was partially illegible,
Case 3:25-cv-01325-AW-HTC Document 24 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
Case No. 3:25cv1325-AW-HTC
improperly joined claims, and failed to include factual allegations that supported
retaliation, due process, or deliberate indifference claims). The Court gave Jackson
an opportunity to file an amended complaint and advised him that, among other
things, a complaint must “contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id.
On December 2, 2025, Jackson filed the amended complaint. Doc. 19. The
Court screened the amended complaint, informed Jackson that most of the claims it
raised were not viable, and gave Jackson an opportunity to submit a second amended
complaint. 	Doc. 20. 	On December 29, 2025, Jackson filed the second amended
complaint. Doc. 23.
II. 	Discussion
Jackson’s second amended complaint should be dismissed without prejudice
because it is a shotgun pleading. The second amended complaint fails to separate
“into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief,” see Weiland v. Palm
Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2015), and it “is so
disorganized and ambiguous that it is almost impossible to discern precisely what it
is that [Jackson is] claiming,” see Cramer v. Florida, 117 F.3d 1258, 1261 (11th Cir.
1997). 	Specifically, the numbered paragraphs in Jackson’s Statement of Facts—
some of which are a page long—are each associated with a numbered paragraph in
Case 3:25-cv-01325-AW-HTC Document 24 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
Case No. 3:25cv1325-AW-HTC
the Statement of Claims that lists a variety of purported regulatory and constitutional
violations, but the reader cannot tell which facts support which claims.
For example, paragraph 2 of the Statement of Facts includes allegations
regarding: (1) Jackson’s complaints about being given a new and purportedly
dangerous cellmate; (2) Jackson being forcibly moved into his cell with that new
cellmate; (3) Jackson receiving disciplinary reports for battery and disobeying an
order; (4) a Defendant being motivated to write a disciplinary report because his wife
was pushed over; and (5) Jackson getting into an altercation with the new cellmate
and being placed on close management. 	Based on these varied allegations,
paragraph 3 in the Statement of Claims states in part: “Ofc. A Gerencser: 8 th , 1 st
Amendment, 601.800, 208.002(12)(19)(22)(26)(1), 33.404 act uncolor of state law,
deliberate 	indifference, 	208.003 	– 	C. 	Cattnach: 	1 st , 	8 th Amendment,
208.002(1)(8)(12)(19)(26), act uncolor of state law 601.800.”1 Likewise, based on
1 The Court previously told Jackson that violations of FDOC regulations do not amount to
constitutional violations, and such regulations “are not intended to confer rights or benefits on
inmates but are merely designed to guide correctional officials in the administration of prisons.”
Doc. 20 at 7. 	Nevertheless, the Statement of Facts and the Statement of Claims in the second
amended complaint are still littered with allegations that the Defendants violated FDOC
regulations. Jackson’s failure to heed the Court’s instructions when amending his complaint also
supports the dismissal of this case without prejudice. 	See Bell v. Fla. Highway Patrol, 476 F.
App’x 856, 857 (11th Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal of complaint when “the district court
provided [plaintiff] with instructions in its order dismissing her second amended complaint” but
her “third amended complaint failed to comply with these detailed instructions regarding how to
plead claims and which claims to present”); Ussery v. Roundtree, 2022 WL 2101338, at *1 (S.D.
Ga. June 10, 2022) (“[T]he Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a pro se complaint where
a plaintiff fails to heed the pleading instructions from the court regarding re-drafting the
complaint.”) (citing Taylor v. Spaziano, 251 F. App’x 616, 620-21 (11th Cir. 2007)).
Case 3:25-cv-01325-AW-HTC Document 24 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
Case No. 3:25cv1325-AW-HTC
the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Facts, paragraph 3 in the Statement
of Claims states: “T. Allender: 601.307, 601.308, 208.002(1)(8)(26), 601.304, 1 st ,
5 th , 8 th , 14 th Amendment, act uncolor of state law, 33.601.305.” Doc. 23 at 13.
By presenting his claims this way, Jackson has made it impossible for the
Court and the Defendants to determine which allegations in the Statement of Facts
support which claims in the Statement of Claims. See Chudasama v. Mazda Motor
Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1359 n.9 (11th Cir. 1997) (finding a complaint was a shotgun
pleading because “a reader of the complaint must speculate as to which factual
allegations pertain to which count”); Bickerstaff Clay Prods. Co., Inc. v. Harris
Cnty., 89 F.3d 1481, 1484 (11th Cir. 1996) (“The complaint is a typical shotgun
pleading, in that some of the counts present more than one discrete claim for relief.”);
Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir.
1996) (complaint was “a perfect example of ‘shotgun’ pleading” because “it is
virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which
claim(s) for relief”). And the Court cannot “rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading
in order to sustain an action.” 	Hickman v. Hickman, 563 F. App’x 742, 743 (11th
Cir. 2014) (citation omitted); see also Salas v. Nichols, 2017 WL 2834061, at *1
(N.D. Cal. June 30, 2017) (“the Court simply does not have the resources to scour
the complaint … and organize the allegations contained therein in order to perform
its screening duty under § 1915A and identify all cognizable claims”); Foster v.
Case 3:25-cv-01325-AW-HTC Document 24 Filed 01/29/26 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
Case No. 3:25cv1325-AW-HTC
Select Med. Corp., Inc., 2012 WL 1415499, at *11 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2012) (“The
Court will no longer guess Plaintiff’s intentions and will not scour the Complaint for
facts to support each claim.”).
Thus, Jackson’s second amended complaint violates the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure because it fails “to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims
against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” 	Weiland, 792 F.3d at
1323; see also Sledge v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires N. Am., Ltd., 275 F.3d 1014, 1018
(11th Cir. 2001) (“The failure of the plaintiff to identify his claims with sufficient
clarity to enable the defendant to frame a [responsive] pleading constitutes shotgun
pleading.”). 	Because Jackson’s second amended complaint is a shotgun pleading,
and he has already been given multiple opportunities to amend, this case should be
dismissed without prejudice. See Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295
(11th Cir. 2018) (“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.”) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:
1. 	That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because the
second amended complaint is a shotgun pleading.
2. 	That the clerk close the file.
Case 3:25-cv-01325-AW-HTC Document 24 Filed 01/29/26 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
Case No. 3:25cv1325-AW-HTC
At Pensacola, Florida, this 29 th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen (14) 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 its objections upon
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 the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.
Case 3:25-cv-01325-AW-HTC Document 24 Filed 01/29/26 Page 6 of 6