Adaptive Maritime Expertise Inc. v. State of Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
2:25-cv-14094
S.D. Fla.May 14, 2025Background
- Adaptive Maritime Expertise, Inc. filed a pro se complaint, through its President, regarding a vessel aground along the Indian River Lagoon, invoking maritime law and alleging constitutional and statutory violations by the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission.
- Plaintiff sought injunctive relief against the defendant's administrative actions regarding the vessel.
- Plaintiff also moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), but this was denied by the court, which found the complaint legally deficient.
- The court ordered Plaintiff to secure counsel, file an amended complaint, and pay the filing fee by May 5, 2025; Plaintiff failed to comply with this order and took no further action.
- Subsequently, the court reviewed the case sua sponte, considering dismissing the matter for several procedural and substantive defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to prosecute and comply with court orders | No affirmative steps taken or response provided | Non-compliance with deadlines | Dismissed for failure to prosecute |
| Corporate entity appearing pro se | President filed on company's behalf | Only licensed counsel allowed | Corporate pro se complaint dismissed |
| Legal sufficiency of complaint (shotgun pleading) | Complaint alleged multiple claims in a narrative | Insufficient, unclear claims | Dismissed as improper shotgun pleading |
| Sufficiency of claims stated | Raised constitutional and statutory violations | Claims lack proper counts | Failed to state a claim; also dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2009) (upholding dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court order)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (court's inherent authority to manage and dismiss cases)
- Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (corporations must appear in federal court through counsel)
- Morewitz v. West of England Ship Owners Mut. Prot. and Indem. Ass’n (Luxembourg), 62 F.3d 1356 (11th Cir. 1995) (dismissal with prejudice reserved for extreme cases)
- Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381 (11th Cir. 1985) (corporate parties cannot proceed pro se)
- Cramer v. State of Fla., 117 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 1997) (shotgun pleadings are unacceptable)
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (defining categories of impermissible shotgun pleadings)