Hill v. Mobile City Council et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
REGINALD JOSEPH HILL, II, 	*
*
Plaintiff, 	*
*
vs. 	* CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-00306-KD-B
*
MOBILE CITY COUNCIL, et al., 	*
*
Defendants. 	*
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This 	action 	is 	before 	the 	Court 	on 	Defendants’ 	joint 	motion
to dismiss (Doc. 3). 	Upon review, the Court finds that it cannot
properly 	evaluate 	Plaintiff’s 	claims 	because 	Plaintiff’s 	amended
complaint 	is 	an 	egregious 	shotgun 	pleading. 	Therefore, 	the
undersigned 	recommends, 	for 	the 	reasons 	stated 	herein, 	that 	the
motion 	to 	dismiss 	be 	DENIED 	without 	prejudice 	as 	moot, 	that 	the
amended 	complaint 	be 	DISMISSED 	without 	prejudice 	as 	a 	shotgun
pleading, 	and 	that 	Plaintiff 	be 	granted 	leave 	to 	file 	a 	second
amended complaint that is not a shotgun pleading.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff Reginald Joseph Hill, II (“Hill”)
commenced 	this 	action 	by 	filing 	a 	complaint 	in 	the 	Circuit 	Court
of 	Mobile 	County, 	Alabama. 	(Doc. 	1-1 	at 	5-8). 	Hill 	filed 	an

2
amended 	complaint 	on 	August 	20, 	2024, 	which 	is 	now 	his 	operative
pleading. 	(Id. at 51-54).1
Hill’s amended complaint names as Defendants the Mobile City
Council 	and 	the 	City 	of 	Mobile. 	(Id. 	at 	51). 	Hill 	asserts 	that
“[a]ll of the acts and/or failures to act claimed herein were duly
performed 	by 	and/or 	are 	attributable 	to 	the 	above 	listed
Defendants, both individually or acting collectively.” 	(Id.).2
In the “Facts” section of the amended complaint, Hill alleges:
By 	means 	of 	Abuse 	of 	Power 	and 	Abuse 	of 	Process, 	the
Plaintiff 	has 	been 	the 	victim 	to 	a 	plethora 	of
(targeted/intentional/conspired) 	rights 	violations,
enforced and conducted by the Defendants.
Such 	examples 	(to 	be 	filed 	in 	detail 	through 	future
Notice 	of 	Adjudicative 	Facts 	and 	Notice 	of 	Intent)
include, 	but 	are 	not 	limited 	to: 	illegally 	withholding
local 	funds; 	discriminately 	withholding 	federal 	funds
(designated 	for 	specific 	local 	use) 	through 	access
prevention; 	unlawfully 	inserting 	one’s 	name 	in 	formal
communications 	made 	via 	U.S. 	Postage 	or 	email, 	while
using 	an 	Official 	Letterhead 	(City 	Seal, 	or 	adopted
emblem); weaponized use of Law Enforcement Officers for
direct 	targeting 	purposes; 	etc. 	(too 	be 	included 	say
necessary).
On 	July 	24, 	2024 	via 	a 	LETTER 	TO 	THE 	JUDGE, 	potential
increase 	of 	relief 	was 	introduced 	(by 	the 	Plaintiff),
contingent 	upon 	the 	[timely] 	actions 	of 	the 	City 	of
Mobile Office of Professional Responsibility.
1 	Hill’s 	initial 	complaint 	was 	titled: 	“Abuse 	of 	Power 	and 	Abuse
of Process Complaint.” 	(Doc. 1-1 at 5). 	Hill’s amended complaint
is 	titled: 	“Amendment 	to 	Abuse 	of 	Power 	and 	Abuse 	of 	Process
Complaint.” 	(Id. at 51).
2 	Unless 	otherwise 	indicated, 	quoted 	language 	from 	Hill’s 	pro 	se
filings 	is 	reproduced 	herein 	without 	modification 	or 	correction
for typographical, grammar, or spelling errors.

3
(Id. at 52 (emphasis in original)).
Hill describes his “Claims for Relief” as follows:
As 	with 	those 	details 	(related 	to 	the 	Facts) 	mentioned
above, 	specific 	connection 	(Case 	relevance) 	to 	the
Claims in this Subtitle shall be included in the (to be
filed) 	Notice 	of 	Adjudicative 	Facts 	and 	Notice 	of
Intent. 	Basis for this complaint is (primarily) derived
from Ala. Code § 6-2-33(1); 6-2-34(9); 6-2-38(k, l); 6-
5-100; 	6-5-101; 	6-5-104; 	6-5-170; 	6-5-182, 	6-5-185; 	6-
5-260; 6-5-262; 11-44C-31; 11-44C-37; 11-44C-37(5); 11-
44C-52; 	and 	others 	that 	may 	arise 	throughout 	the
duration 	of 	this 	legal 	proceeding 	{*have 	now
unfortunately – i.e. Sec. 62-1 of the Mobile City Code;
Alabama State Legislature HB289; Code of Alabama (1975)
§ 36-21-212(c)(1); etc.}.
(Id. at 52-53 (emphasis in original)).
Under the heading “Due Relief,” Hill states:
To be itemized in detail, through forthcoming Notice of
Intent, 	the 	following 	compensatory 	damages 	totaling
$2,200,000.00 	is 	applicable 	for 	the 	claimed: 	Breach 	of
Contract; 	Slander; 	Defamation; 	Fraud; 	Conspiring;
Targeting; 	Mental 	Anguish; 	Loss 	of 	Opportunity;
Deprivation; 	Harassment; 	Assault; 	Police 	Brutality;
Medical Malpractice; Malfeasance; Abuse of Power; Abuse
of 	Process, 	and 	other 	charges 	against 	the 	defense 	that
shall be identified in the future of this case.
(Id. at 53).
Hill concludes:
Therefore, 	based 	on 	the 	relevance 	articulated 	in 	this
Complaint 	and 	also 	stipulated 	in 	The 	Code 	of 	Alabama
1975; The Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and the United
States 	Constitution 	– 	For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	The
Court 	should 	grant 	the 	relief 	requested 	by 	the
Plaintiff, 	approve 	security 	in 	the 	amount 	deemed 	most
appropriate by The Court; provide the Plaintiff with an
opportunity 	to 	conduct 	expedited 	discovery 	(especially
through means of subpoena), approve a trial by Jury and
order such further relief as this Court sees fit.

4
(Id. at 53-54 (emphasis in original)).
This 	action 	was 	removed 	to 	this 	Court 	on 	August 	26, 	2024.
(Doc. 1). 	On August 30, 2024, Defendants Mobile City Council and
City 	of 	Mobile 	(collectively, 	“Defendants”) 	filed 	a 	joint 	motion
to 	dismiss 	Hill’s 	amended 	complaint. 	(Doc. 	3). 	In 	the 	motion,
Defendants 	argue 	that 	Hill 	“fails 	to 	advance 	any 	allegations
connecting” 	them 	to 	any 	of 	the 	“purported 	wrongdoings” 	listed 	in
the 	amended 	complaint, 	and 	that 	the 	amended 	complaint 	therefore
“fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should
be 	dismissed 	in 	its 	entirety.” 	(Id. 	at 	5). 	Alternatively,
Defendants assert that Hill “should be required to provide a more
definite 	statement 	in 	accordance 	with 	Rule 	12(e) 	of 	the 	Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.” 	(Id.).
II. 	DISCUSSION
Having 	reviewed 	Hill’s 	amended 	complaint 	sua 	sponte, 	the
undersigned 	finds 	that 	it 	is 	an 	egregious 	shotgun 	pleading, 	and
that 	the 	Court 	cannot 	adequately 	address 	the 	merits 	of 	Hill’s
claims or Defendants’ arguments for dismissal until Hill has cured
his pleading deficiencies.
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim 	showing 	that 	the 	pleader 	is 	entitled 	to 	relief.” 	Fed. 	R.
Civ. 	P. 	8(a)(2). 	This 	means 	that 	“a 	complaint 	must 	contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to

5
relief 	that 	is 	plausible 	on 	its 	face.’” 	Ashcroft 	v. 	Iqbal, 	556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 	570 	(2007)). 	The 	purpose 	of 	Rule 	8(a)(2) 	is 	to 	“give 	the
defendant 	fair 	notice 	of 	what 	the 	. 	. 	. 	claim 	is 	and 	the 	grounds
upon 	which 	it 	rests.” 	Twombly, 	550 	U.S. 	at 	555 	(quotation
omitted). 	Each allegation in a complaint “must be simple, concise,
and 	direct.” 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	8(d)(1). 	Relatedly, 	Rule 	10(b) 	of
the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	mandates 	that 	a 	complaint
“state 	its 	claims 	. 	. 	. 	in 	numbered 	paragraphs, 	each 	limited 	as
far 	as 	practicable 	to 	a 	single 	set 	of 	circumstances,” 	and 	that
“each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . .
be 	stated 	in 	a 	separate 	count” 	to 	the 	extent 	doing 	so 	“would
promote clarity.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
These rules “work together to require the pleader to present
his 	claims 	discretely 	and 	succinctly, 	so 	that 	his 	adversary 	can
discern what he is claiming and frame a responsive pleading, [and
so 	that 	a] 	court 	can 	determine 	which 	facts 	support 	which 	claims
and whether the plaintiff has stated any claims upon which relief
can 	be 	granted[.]” 	Fikes 	v. 	City 	of 	Daphne, 	79 	F.3d 	1079, 	1082
(11th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted).
Complaints 	that 	violate 	these 	rules 	are 	“disparagingly
referred 	to 	as 	‘shotgun 	pleadings.’” 	Weiland 	v. 	Palm 	Beach 	Cty.
Sheriff’s 	Office, 	792 	F.3d 	1313, 	1320 	(11th 	Cir. 	2015). 	The
Eleventh Circuit has identified four broad types or categories of

6
shotgun 	pleadings: 	(1) 	those 	in 	which 	“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;” 	(2) 	those 	that 	are 	“replete 	with
conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to
any 	particular 	cause 	of 	action;” 	(3) 	those 	that 	do 	not 	separate
each 	cause 	of 	action 	or 	claim 	for 	relief 	into 	a 	different 	count;
and 	(4) 	those 	that 	assert 	“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 	1321-23. 	The 	unifying
characteristic 	of 	all 	shotgun 	pleadings 	is 	that 	they 	“fail 	. 	. 	.
to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them
and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” 	Id. at 1323.
When 	presented 	with 	a 	shotgun 	pleading, 	“the 	trial 	court,
whether or not requested to do so by the party’s adversary, ought
to require the party to file a repleader.” 	U.S. ex rel. Atkins v.
McInteer, 	470 	F.3d 	1350, 	1354 	n.6 	(11th 	Cir. 	2006). 	“In 	the
repleading 	order, 	the 	district 	court 	should 	explain 	how 	the
offending pleading violates the shotgun pleading rule so that the
party 	may 	properly 	avoid 	future 	shotgun 	pleadings.” 	Vibe 	Micro,
Inc. 	v. 	Shabanets, 	878 	F.3d 	1291, 	1296 	(11th 	Cir. 	2018). 	“[I]f
the 	plaintiff 	fails 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	court’s 	order—by 	filing 	a
repleader 	with 	the 	same 	deficiency—the 	court 	should 	strike 	his

7
pleading or, depending on the circumstances, dismiss his case and
consider 	the 	imposition 	of 	monetary 	sanctions.’” 	Id. 	at 	1295
(citation omitted).
Hill’s amended complaint is a textbook shotgun pleading that
fails to provide adequate notice of his claims and factual grounds
upon 	which 	those 	claims 	rest. 	The 	amended 	complaint 	falls 	into
the second shotgun pleading category identified in Weiland because
it 	contains 	only 	vague 	and 	conclusory 	allegations 	that 	are 	not
obviously connected to any particular cause of action or claim for
relief. 	Hill purports to provide “examples” of “right violations,”
but 	his 	allegations 	are 	devoid 	of 	factual 	context 	or 	details 	and
are 	therefore 	insufficient 	to 	provide 	adequate 	notice 	of 	the
underlying factual basis for any of his claims or to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
Moreover, 	Hill’s 	amended 	complaint 	violates 	the 	requirement
that 	allegations 	in 	a 	complaint 	“must 	be 	simple, 	concise, 	and
direct.” 	See 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	8(d)(1) 	(emphasis 	added). 	Rather
than stating his allegations plainly and describing specific facts
or 	events, 	Hill 	suggests 	that 	“examples” 	and 	“details” 	of
wrongdoing 	will 	be 	included 	in 	a 	“(to 	be 	filed) 	Notice 	of
Adjudicative 	Facts 	and 	Notice 	of 	Intent.” 	(See 	Doc. 	1-1 	at 	52-
53). 	This manner of pleading is entirely improper because it fails
to provide notice of what Hill is claiming. 	Hill is hereby advised
that the Court cannot grant him relief on a claim that he does not

8
actually 	plead 	in 	his 	complaint, 	nor 	can 	it 	consider 	an 	“unpled
factual basis for [his] claims.” 	See Hom v. Transunion, LLC, 2024
U.S. 	Dist. 	LEXIS 	86464, 	at 	*4, 	2024 	WL 	2258320, 	at 	*2 	(S.D. 	Fla.
May 14, 2024).
Additionally, 	Hill’s 	amended 	complaint 	falls 	into 	the 	third
shotgun pleading category and violates Rule 10(b) because it fails
to make clear what causes of action Hill is asserting and does not
separate his claims for relief or causes of action into different
counts 	with 	the 	pertinent 	facts 	supporting 	each 	claim. 	See 	Fed.
R. Civ. P. 10(b); Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1322-23 (“The third type of
shotgun 	pleading 	is 	one 	that 	commits 	the 	sin 	of 	not 	separating
into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief.”).
Hill 	lists 	numerous 	statutory 	provisions 	and 	suggests 	that 	he 	is
bringing a multiplicity of claims, but he fails to explain how any
of 	the 	listed 	provisions 	apply 	to 	this 	case 	and 	fails 	to 	provide
any non-conclusory factual support for his putative claims. 	Hill
further fails to separate each cause of action or claim for relief
into 	a 	different 	count 	as 	required 	and 	fails 	to 	specify 	which
factual allegations are intended to support each of his ill-defined
claims for relief.
Finally, the amended complaint falls into the fourth shotgun
pleading 	category 	because 	Hill’s 	claims 	are 	apparently 	asserted
against 	both 	Defendants, 	but 	Hill 	does 	not 	specify 	what 	each

9
Defendant did or failed to do to make that Defendant liable under
each cause of action alleged.
To 	be 	sure, 	the 	Court 	must 	liberally 	construe 	Hill’s 	pro 	se
pleadings. 	See 	Erickson 	v. 	Pardus, 	551 	U.S. 	89, 	94 	(2007).
However, it cannot act as counsel for Hill or rewrite his otherwise
deficient pleading in order to sustain this action. 	See Campbell
v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir. 2014). 	As
a pro se litigant, Hill is still “subject to the relevant law and
rules 	of 	court, 	including 	the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil 	Procedure.”
Moon 	v. 	Newsome, 	863 	F.2d 	835, 	837 	(11th 	Cir. 	1989). 	And 	even
under 	the 	most 	liberal 	construction 	possible, 	Hill’s 	amended
complaint 	cannot 	be 	construed 	as 	anything 	other 	than 	an
impermissible shotgun pleading.
The 	undersigned 	finds 	that 	the 	pleading 	issues 	described
above 	frustrate 	the 	Court’s 	ability 	to 	determine 	exactly 	what
claims Hill is making against each Defendant and whether Hill can
state 	a 	claim 	upon 	which 	relief 	can 	be 	granted. 	In 	light 	of 	the
obvious 	shotgun 	nature 	of 	Hill’s 	amended 	state 	court 	complaint,
the 	Court 	finds 	that 	dismissal 	for 	failure 	to 	state 	a 	claim 	is
inappropriate 	at 	this 	time. 	Specifically, 	the 	Court 	finds 	that
Defendants’ 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	should 	be 	denied 	without 	prejudice
to 	reassert 	the 	arguments 	therein, 	because 	the 	amended 	complaint
is 	due 	to 	be 	dismissed 	sua 	sponte 	as 	an 	impermissible 	shotgun
pleading. 	See Bonczyk v. Levene, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182516, at

10
*4, 	2020 	WL 	5803057, 	at 	*2 	(M.D. 	Fla. 	May 	6, 	2020) 	(finding 	sua
sponte 	that 	the 	complaint 	was 	a 	shotgun 	pleading 	that 	made 	it
extremely 	difficult 	to 	understand 	the 	claims 	asserted 	against
Defendants 	or 	make 	sense 	of 	the 	pending 	motions 	to 	dismiss 	and
responses 	thereto, 	and 	denying 	the 	motions 	to 	dismiss 	as 	moot,
dismissing 	the 	complaint 	without 	prejudice, 	and 	directing
plaintiff to file an amended complaint in compliance with Rules 8
and 10); Boardwalk Fresh Burgers & Fries, Inc. v. Wang, 2020 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 258848, at *5, 2020 WL 10319160, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov.
9, 2020) (denying motion to dismiss without prejudice, sua sponte
dismissing complaint as a shotgun pleading, and granting leave to
file amended complaint that was not a shotgun pleading); Myers v.
Countrywide Home Loans, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156277, at *5, 2010
WL 	11647455, 	at 	*2 	(N.D. 	Ga. 	May 	26, 	2010) 	(sua 	sponte 	striking
complaint 	as 	a 	shotgun 	pleading, 	directing 	plaintiff 	to 	file 	an
amended 	complaint 	that 	complies 	with 	Rules 	8(a) 	and 	10(b), 	and
recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied as moot),
report 	and 	recommendation 	adopted, 	2010 	U.S. 	Dist. 	LEXIS 	156279,
2010 WL 11647457 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 2, 2010).
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, 	the 	undersigned 	recommends 	that 	Defendants’
joint 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	(Doc. 	3) 	be 	DENIED 	without 	prejudice 	as
moot, 	that 	Hill’s 	amended 	complaint 	(Doc. 	1-1 	at 	51-54) 	be
DISMISSED 	without 	prejudice, 	and 	that 	Hill 	be 	GRANTED 	LEAVE 	to

11
file a second amended complaint that complies with Rules 8 and 10
by 	presenting 	his 	claims 	for 	relief 	with 	sufficient 	clarity 	to
permit 	Defendants 	and 	the 	Court 	to 	clearly 	identify 	each 	claim
being raised against each Defendant and the factual basis for each
claim raised against each Defendant.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS
A 	copy 	of 	this 	report 	and 	recommendation 	shall 	be 	served 	on
all parties in the manner provided by law. 	Any party who objects
to this recommendation or anything in it must, within fourteen (14)
days of the date of service of this document, file specific written
objections with the Clerk of this Court. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(c). 	The parties should
note 	that 	under 	Eleventh 	Circuit 	Rule 	3-1, 	“[a] 	party 	failing 	to
object 	to 	a 	magistrate 	judge’s 	findings 	or 	recommendations
contained 	in 	a 	report 	and 	recommendation 	in 	accordance 	with 	the
provisions 	of 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	636(b)(1) 	waives 	the 	right 	to 	challenge
on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual
and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period
for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object.
In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review
on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”
11th Cir. R. 3-1.
In 	order 	to 	be 	specific, 	an 	objection 	must 	identify 	the
specific place in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation

12
where 	the 	disputed 	determination 	is 	found. 	An 	objection 	that
merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before
the Magistrate Judge is not specific.
DONE this 4th day of September, 2024.
/S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 	_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE