McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation Police Department
455 F. App'x 874
11th Cir.2011Background
- McMahon, a pro se plaintiff, appeals a district court ruling dismissing his third amended complaint as a shotgun pleading.
- The suit arose from McMahon’s 2003–2004 arrests at the Cleveland Clinic in Naples, Florida, naming the Clinic, the CCSO, the State Attorney’s Office, and numerous employees.
- McMahon asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, the ADA, and related state-law claims.
- The district court dismissed prior complaints as shotgun pleadings and required a coherent, properly pleaded third amended complaint.
- The court ultimately dismissed the third amended complaint without prejudice, and McMahon sought injunctive relief and electronic-notification rights, which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the third amended complaint was properly dismissed as a shotgun pleading | McMahon argues the complaint alleged actionable facts against many defendants. | The district court found the pleading disjointed and overly broad, violating Rule 8 and creating a shotgun filing. | Yes; dismissal without prejudice upheld as shotgun pleading. |
| Whether the denial of a preliminary injunction was proper | McMahon claimed irreparable harm and sought emergency relief. | Defendants contended no substantial likelihood of success and no Rule 65(b) justification. | Yes; injunction denial affirmed. |
| Whether denial of electronic-notification access was proper | McMahon requested CM/ECF access for timely filings. | Court lacked good cause to grant electronic notification to a pro se filer under local rules. | Yes; access denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion rule 41(b) and docket-management authority)
- Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 178 F.3d 1373 (11th Cir. 1999) (abuse of discretion for dismissal)
- Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989) (discretionary dismissal when forewarned)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se filings must provide fair notice; standard for pleadings)
- Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955 (11th Cir. 2008) (shotgun pleadings and notice requirements)
- Wagner v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006) (definition of shotgun pleadings)
- Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923 (11th Cir. 1989) (non-final orders and questions on appeal)