John Westley v. Jose L. Alberto, 703 F. App'x 727

John Westley filed multiple suits alleging a broad conspiracy to fraudulently evict him from a Miami apartment, destroy property, and retaliate for cooperation with federal investigations; suits were filed in Minnesota, Northern Florida, and the Middle District of Florida before transfer to the Southern District of Florida.
Earlier proceedings: Minnesota court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction/venue (some claims dismissed with prejudice); Northern District of Florida transferred a similar complaint to S.D. Fla. and S.D. Fla. later dismissed it for failing Rule 8(a)(2) pleading standards.
In the Middle District of Florida Westley sued ~24 defendants (including judges and many Miami-based parties); the court issued an order to show cause about venue and then transferred the case to the Southern District of Florida after rejecting Westley’s procedural and recusal arguments.
Before transfer Westley had returns of service for three defendants, a clerk’s default against one defendant, and pending motions to dismiss by others; some motions and filings arrived after transfer and were not docketed in the transferring court.
One week after transfer the S.D. Fla. court granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss and sua sponte dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice for shotgun pleading and failure to meet Rule 8 standards, concluding further amendment would be futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper venue / transfer to S.D. Fla.	Transfer was improper; judicial estoppel/res judicata barred transfer; biased judges in S.D. Fla. make venue inappropriate	Majority of defendants and operative events occurred in S.D. Fla.; transfer proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)	Transfer to S.D. Fla. affirmed; proper under § 1391(b); court afforded show-cause and Westley’s objections lacked merit
Judicial disqualification / § 455	Presence of a S.D. Fla. judge as a defendant means S.D. Fla. judges cannot be impartial	§ 455 requires objective facts showing bias; mere presence of a judge-defendant insufficient	Rejected; no factual basis shown for recusal; Bolin controls — no objective basis to doubt impartiality
Sua sponte dismissal and notice (Rule 8 / shotgun pleading)	Dismissal with prejudice and without notice was improper	Complaint was a classic shotgun pleading, patently frivolous, and further amendment would be futile	Affirmed: complaint failed Rule 8(a)(2); sua sponte dismissal was proper without further notice because complaint was patently frivolous and Westley had prior warnings
Alleged docketing errors / clerk failures	Clerk’s failure to docket certain motions prejudiced Westley	District court’s sua sponte dismissal rendered any docketing errors harmless	Rejected as harmless error under Rule 61; dismissal with prejudice stands

United States v. Smith, 918 F.2d 1551 (11th Cir. 1990) (transfer of venue reviewed for abuse of discretion)
MSP Recovery, LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co., 835 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2016) (dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) reviewed de novo)
Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2012) (accept well-pleaded allegations as true on review)
Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) (procedural requirements for sua sponte transfer or dismissal; show-cause and notice principles)
Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (identifying types of shotgun pleadings insufficient under Rule 8)
Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2000) (objective standard for recusal; mere association with other judges insufficient)
Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2001) (district court need not permit amendment where plaintiff repeatedly fails to cure pleading defects)
Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075 (11th Cir. 2001) (patently frivolous complaints may be dismissed without notice)
Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008) (context for discussing abrogation on other grounds)