Anna Solomon v. City of Lauderhill

── Anna Solomon v. City of Lauderhill ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 04, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-13071 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2026 Page: 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13071 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ANNA SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MAYOR OF CITY OF LAUDERHILL, et al., Defendants, CITY OF LAUDERHILL, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:23-cv-62314-RS ____________________ Before NEWSOM, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-13071 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2026 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 25-13071 Anna Solomon, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her second amended complaint with prejudice. On appeal, she argues that the district court erred in dismissing her complaint as a shotgun pleading. We review for abuse of discretion a dismissal on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 shotgun pleading grounds. Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2018). “A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates either Fed- eral Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both.” Bar- mapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021). Rule 8 re- quires that the complaint set forth “a short, plain statement of the claim” that explains why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This short and plain statement must “give the de- fendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quota- tion marks omitted and alterations adopted). Additionally, Rule 10 provides that these claims must be stated in numbered paragraphs that are each limited to a single set of circumstances, to the degree practicable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Failure to follow these rules re- sults in a shotgun pleading that “waste[s] scarce judicial resources, inexorably broaden[s] the scope of discovery, wreak[s] havoc on appellate court dockets, and undermine[s] the public’s respect for the courts.” Vibe Micro, 878 F.3d at 1295 (quotation marks omitted and alterations adopted). Our Circuit has little tolerance for shot- gun pleadings. Id. USCA11 Case: 25-13071 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2026 Page: 3 of 5 25-13071 Opinion of the Court 3 There are four main types of shotgun complaints: (1) a com- plaint where each count realleges previous allegations so that “the last count [is] a combination of the entire complaint” and includes large amounts of irrelevant information; (2) a complaint which is “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts”; (3) a com- plaint which fails to separate each claim for relief into a different count; and (4) a complaint that alleges multiple claims against mul- tiple defendants in each count, without identifying which defend- ants are responsible for which claims. Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321-23 (11th Cir. 2