Brian Terry v. Jamila McGee

── Brian Terry v. Jamila McGee ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12825 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 Page: 1 of 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12825 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ BRIAN TERRY, GALINA ROOFENER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus JAMILA MCGEE, Code Enforcement Division, JOHN S. TURNER, THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:24-cv-14403-DMM ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 25-12825 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 Page: 2 of 11 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12825 PER CURIAM: Brian Terry and Galina Roofener, proceeding pro se, appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their claims against Jamila McGee, John Turner, and the City of Vero Beach, Florida. In the complaint, the plaintiffs sued pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, bringing a variety of constitutional, fraud and breach of contract claims arising out of a municipal code enforce- ment dispute. Among other things, they alleged that McGee, a mu- nicipal code officer employed by the City of Vero Beach “submit- ted false affidavits” and “misapplied a municipal code to harass and intimidate Plaintiffs.” They further alleged that Turner, the City Attorney, allegedly “breached his fiduciary and professional duty by failing to prevent or correct Defendant McGee’s unconstitu- tional actions.” On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that: (1) the district court erred in finding that their amended complaint was a shotgun pleading that failed to state a claim for relief; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in not granting them further leave to amend their complaint and by not considering exhibits they had attached to prior pleadings. After careful review, we affirm. We review the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Venequip Mach. Sales Corp., 147 F.4th 1341, 1346 (11th Cir. 2025). We review for abuse of discretion the dismissal of a complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading. Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2018). We review a district court’s decision whether to grant further leave USCA11 Case: 25-12825 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 Page: 3 of 11 25-12825 Opinion of the Court 3 to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion but review de novo the district court’s decision that granting leave to amend would be futile. Pinnacle Advert. & Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. Pinnacle Advert. & Mktg. Grp., LLC, 7 F.4th 989, 999 (11th Cir. 2021) (granting leave to amend); L.S. ex rel. Hernandez v. Peterson, 982 F.3d 1323, 1328 (11th Cir. 2020) (reviewing whether granting leave to amend was futile de novo). A court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures,