Curtis Gorham v. Elijah Smiley

── Curtis Gorham v. Elijah Smiley ── Case No.: 25-12693 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 18, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12693 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 1 of 8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12693 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ CURTIS GORHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ELIJAH SMILEY, Judge, GARY LAVINE, Dr., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 5:24-cv-00280-MW-MJF ____________________ Before BRANCH, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-12693 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 2 of 8 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12693 Curtis Gorham appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. After review, we affirm. I. Background Gorham, proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint against “120 [unnamed] parties,” containing general, conclusory allegations of “conspiracy, malicious prosecution, false arrest, poisoning by police,” and issues with various actions taken in various state court cases he had in Florida. Gorham also successfully moved to proceed in forma pauperis. A magistrate judge sua sponte preliminarily screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and concluded, in relevant part, that the complaint violated the rules of civil procedure concerning pleading and joinder. The magistrate judge explained what Gorham needed to do to fix the deficiencies and dismissed the complaint without prejudice with instructions for Gorham to file an amended complaint. Thereafter, Gorham filed a motion for rehearing of the magistrate judge’s order; a motion requesting appointment of a guardian ad litem because Gorham was “incompetent”1; and a motion for appointment of counsel because he was indigent, “mentally incompetent,” and had been found “vexatious in a hearing in the state court prior to removal to federal court.” The court denied these motions. 1 Gorham did not specify the basis of his alleged incompetency. USCA11 Case: 25-12693 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 3 of 8 25-12693 Opinion of the Court 3 Gorham then filed an amended complaint, but he did not clarify who the defendants were or what specific claims he sought to raise. Instead, he again took issue with various actions taken in his various Florida state court cases and asserted that he had “removed” the present case from state to federal court. He generally asserted that the action “include[d] but [was] not limited to a ‘Mass Action’ to include medical malpractice, personal injury, 42 USC 1983 Civil Rights and various other causes of action” against “100 parties,” including doctors, nurses, medical practices, hospitals, hospital officials and employees, state court judges, state courts and court employees, financial institutions, various Florida police departments, and other individuals. He included allegations related to inadequate medical care that he received in Florida,