Somerville v. Department of Health and Human Services
6:24-cv-02185
| M.D. Fla. | Apr 22, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Lois M. Somerville, proceeding pro se, challenged an "order of denial" from the Medicare Appeals Council, seeking reimbursement of $165.03.
- The complaint alleged a "coordinated scheme" among government and corporate defendants to wrongfully deprive her of this reimbursement, with broader assertions about the allocation of government funds and alleged harm to U.S. citizens.
- Defendants included various federal entities (HHS, U.S. Attorney, Attorney General), as well as Aetna Life Insurance Co., CVS Caremark, and other unknown persons.
- Both corporate and federal defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- Plaintiff filed numerous additional motions, including striking motions and contempt allegations, all of which the court addressed in this order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint is a shotgun pleading | The complaint sets forth valid claims against all defendants | Complaint is vague, fails to specify which claims target which defendants | Complaint is shotgun pleading; dismissed w/o prejudice |
| Subject matter jurisdiction and sufficiency of legal claims | Court has federal question jurisdiction (various statutes and amendments) | Plaintiff fails to establish court's subject matter jurisdiction | Dismissed for lack of clarity; leave to amend given |
| Motions to strike defendants' motions to dismiss | Defendants' defenses invalid due to executive orders; relief warranted | Motions to strike are improper and baseless | Motions to strike denied |
| Motions for show cause (contempt) against individuals | April Davis and Judge Gutierrez violated her rights, warranting contempt | No legal basis or relevant facts supporting contempt | Motions for contempt denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (establishing characteristics and standards for "shotgun pleadings" and when dismissal is proper)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleadings require more than "formulaic recitation" of legal elements, must have factual support)
- U.S. Steel Corp. v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2007) (perfunctory, underdeveloped arguments in motions to dismiss may warrant denial)
- Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826 (11th Cir. 2007) (courts give liberal construction to pro se filings, but procedural rules still apply)
- GJR Invs., Inc. v. County of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 1998) (leniency for pro se litigants does not require courts to rewrite deficient pleadings)