MARSHALL v. COLUMBUS CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
CHIQUITA MARSHALL,
next friend of, Z.R.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COLUMBUS CONSOLIDATED
GOVERNMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
CASE NO. 4:25-cv-178 (CDL)
O R D E R
Chiquita 	Marshall, 	on 	behalf 	of 	herself 	and 	Z.R., 	filed 	a
124-page 	complaint 	against 	the 	Columbus 	Consolidated 	Government,
the 	Georgia 	Department 	of 	Human 	Services, 	multiple 	medical
facilities 	and 	medical 	professionals, 	several 	employees 	of 	these
entities, 	and 	some 	of 	her 	relatives. 	Marshall 	later 	filed 	an
amended 	complaint 	that 	added 	hundreds 	of 	numbered 	paragraphs 	and
several exhibits. 	Marshall’s amended complaint has more than 880
paragraphs and spans over 200 pages. 	Two of the Defendants, Johnny
Bonner 	and 	Rashanda 	Lawrence, 	filed 	motions 	to 	dismiss 	in 	part
because 	Marshall’s 	amended 	complaint 	is 	an 	impermissible 	shotgun
pleading. 	As discussed below, both motions (ECF Nos. 50 & 56) are
granted 	to 	the 	extent 	that 	the 	Court 	strikes 	Marshall’s 	Amended
Complaint 	(ECF 	No. 	23) 	as 	an 	impermissible 	shotgun 	pleading 	but
grants Marshall one chance to remedy the deficiencies.
Case 4:25-cv-00178-CDL Document 89 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 5

2
DISCUSSION
The rules for pleading in federal court apply to all litigants
in 	federal 	court, 	including 	pro 	se 	plaintiffs 	like 	Marshall.
Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	8(a)(2) 	states 	that 	a 	complaint
must 	include 	“a 	short 	and 	plain 	statement 	of 	the 	claim 	showing
that 	the 	pleader 	is 	entitled 	to 	relief.” 	Rule 	10(b) 	requires 	a
party 	to 	“state 	its 	claims 	. . . 	in 	numbered 	paragraphs, 	each
limited 	as 	far 	as 	practicable 	to 	a 	single 	set 	of 	circumstances.”
Furthermore, 	if 	it 	“would 	promote 	clarity, 	each 	claim 	founded 	on
a 	separate 	transaction 	or 	occurrence 	. . . 	must 	be 	stated 	in 	a
separate count.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
The point of these rules is to require a “pleader to present
his claims discretely and succinctly, so that[] his adversary can
discern 	what 	he 	is 	claiming 	and 	frame 	a 	responsive 	pleading.”
Barmapov 	v. 	Amuial, 	986 	F.3d 	1321, 	1324 	(11th 	Cir. 	2021)
(alteration 	in 	original) 	(quoting 	Weiland 	v. 	Palm 	Beach 	Cnty.
Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015)). 	The rules
also 	exist 	so 	that 	the 	Court 	can 	determine 	“which 	facts 	support
which 	claims” 	and 	“whether 	the 	plaintiff 	has 	stated 	any 	claims
upon which relief can be granted.” 	Id. (quoting Weiland, 792 F.3d
at 1320).
The Court may dismiss a complaint as a shotgun pleading if it
violates Rule 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b). 	Id. 	There are several types
of 	shotgun 	pleadings, 	including 	a 	complaint 	that 	contains
Case 4:25-cv-00178-CDL Document 89 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 5

3
“multiple 	counts 	where 	each 	count 	adopts 	the 	allegations 	of 	all
preceding counts,” a complaint that “is ‘replete with conclusory,
vague, 	and 	immaterial 	facts 	not 	obviously 	connected 	to 	any
particular cause of action,’” and a complaint asserting “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.” 	Id. 	at 	1324-25
(quoting 	Weiland, 	792 	F.3d 	at 	1322-23). 	Shotgun 	pleadings 	are
forbidden because they result in confusion to the opposing parties
and 	the 	Court, 	plus 	they 	“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.”
Id. at 1324 (quoting Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291,
1295 (11th Cir. 2018)).
Here, 	Marshall’s 	amended 	complaint 	violates 	Rule 	8(a)(2)
because 	it 	does 	not 	contain 	“a 	short 	and 	plain 	statement 	of 	the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 	Marshall’s
amended 	complaint 	also 	violates 	Rule 	10(b) 	because 	each 	numbered
paragraph 	is 	not 	limited 	to 	a 	single 	set 	of 	circumstances.
Furthermore, the amended complaint does not separate into discrete
counts 	the 	claims 	based 	on 	the 	separate 	transactions 	and
occurrences. 	Instead, Marshall’s 884-paragraph amended complaint
incorporates 	all 	of 	the 	preceding 	paragraphs 	into 	each 	cause 	of
action. 	The amended complaint is also full of opinions disguised
Case 4:25-cv-00178-CDL Document 89 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 5

4
as 	facts, 	as 	well 	as 	vague, 	conclusory, 	and 	confusing 	facts 	that
are 	not 	obviously 	connected 	to 	the 	claims 	Marshall 	is 	trying 	to
assert. 	Without 	spending 	an 	inordinate 	amount 	of 	time 	sifting
through 	the 	amended 	complaint, 	the 	Court 	cannot 	understand 	what
specific 	allegations 	and 	events 	give 	rise 	to 	the 	specific 	claims
Marshall 	asserts 	against 	each 	Defendant. 	The 	Court 	also 	cannot
comprehend which claims Marshall is asserting on behalf of herself
and which claims she is asserting on behalf of Z.R. 	For all these
reasons, the Court grants both Bonner’s and Lawrence’s motions to
dismiss 	(ECF 	Nos. 	50 	& 	56) 	to 	the 	extent 	that 	it 	strikes 	the
Amended 	Complaint 	(ECF 	No. 	23) 	as 	an 	impermissible 	shotgun
pleading.
The 	Court 	recognizes 	that 	if 	it 	strikes 	a 	complaint 	as 	an
impermissible 	shotgun 	pleading, 	the 	Court 	should 	give 	the
plaintiff 	one 	opportunity 	to 	file 	an 	amended 	complaint 	that
complies with the rules. 	See Vibe Micro, Inc., 878 F.3d at 1295.
Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	grants 	Marshall 	one 	chance 	to 	file 	an
amended 	complaint 	that 	complies 	with 	the 	rules. 	The 	amended
complaint 	shall 	include 	(1) 	a 	coherent 	recitation 	of 	the 	facts
that includes what happened, when it happened, where it happened,
and who did what, (2) what claims Marshall is asserting on behalf
of 	herself, 	(3) 	what 	claims 	Marshall 	is 	asserting 	on 	behalf 	of
Z.R., 	(4) 	what 	claims 	are 	asserted 	against 	each 	defendant, 	(5)
which 	factual 	allegations 	form 	the 	basis 	of 	each 	claim 	against
Case 4:25-cv-00178-CDL Document 89 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 5

5
each 	defendant, 	and 	(6) 	the 	legal 	theory 	upon 	which 	Marshall
asserts 	liability 	against 	each 	defendant. 	The 	amended 	complaint
is 	due 	by 	December 	30, 	2025. 	If 	Marshall 	files 	an 	amended
complaint 	that 	does 	not 	comply 	with 	this 	order 	and 	the 	Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will dismiss this action.1
CONCLUSION
As discussed above, the Court grants Bonner’s and Lawrence’s
motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 50 & 56) to the extent that it strikes
the 	Amended 	Complaint 	(ECF 	No. 	23) 	as 	an 	impermissible 	shotgun
pleading 	but 	permits 	Marshall 	to 	file 	an 	amended 	complaint 	by
December 	30, 	2025. 	All 	other 	pending 	motions 	are 	terminated 	as
moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of December, 2025.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
1 Because these deficiencies apply to the entire complaint and not just
the claims against the Defendants who have formally moved to dismiss it,
failure 	to 	remedy 	the 	deficiencies 	will 	result 	in 	a 	dismissal 	of 	the
complaint 	in 	its 	entirety, 	including 	claims 	against 	all 	parties 	named
in the complaint whether they have filed a motion to dismiss or not.
Case 4:25-cv-00178-CDL Document 89 Filed 12/10/25 Page 5 of 5