United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
ROBERT R. PRUNTY, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
ARNOLD & ITKIN LLP, THE MEYER BLAIR LAW FIRM LLP et al., MORGAN & MORGAN LLP, SHELLER PC and KLINE & SPECTER, P.C., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER 
POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) and 8(a) (Doc. 19) filed on November
7, 2017. Plaintiff pro se Robert R. Prunty, filed a
Response in Opposition (Doc. 21) on November 14,
2017. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.
who is African-American, brings this case against eight
attorneys regarding their alleged mistreatment of his product
liability claims against the pharmaceutical manufacturer of
Risperdal for personal injuries suffered by his minor son.
Prunty alleges that subject matter jurisdiction is based on
diversity of citizenship and federal question. The basis of
his allegations are that Defendants conspired to deprive him
of his Constitutional rights to be free from involuntary
servitude, the right to control the upbringing of his
children, and the right to be free from contract
manipulation. (Doc. 13, ¶ 26). Plaintiff
believes that because Defendants held his Risperdal claims in
“legal captivity” for three years, ultimately
deciding not to file a lawsuit on his behalf, the statute of
limitations on his claims expired. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants willfully and knowingly collected large numbers of
Risperdal plaintiffs in order to destroy their legal cases
and deny them access to the courts, violating peonage
statutes. (Id. at ¶¶ 36, 42, 51).
has amended his Complaint once as a matter of course,
asserting nine counts. (Doc. 13). Despite the labels
applied in the Amended Complaint, the Court construes Counts
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 as asserting claims pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1985(2) and (3), as many of the claims are
duplicative and essentially make the same allegations
throughout. Counts 6, 7, and 8 are common law claims for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, constructive
fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a plaintiff is
required to provide a short and plain statement of the claim
showing entitlement to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2). Although the complaint need not make detailed
factual allegations, it must provide more than labels,
conclusions, and formulaic recitations of the elements of the
cause of action. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). What is more, a plaintiff alleging
fraud, like here, must go one-step further and “state
with particularity the circumstances constitute fraud or
mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). A pleading
thus satisfies satisfy Rule 9(b) if it alleges
(1) precisely what statements were made in what documents or
oral representations or what omissions were made, and (2) the
time and place of each such statement and the person
responsible for making it (or, in the case of omission, not
making) same, and (3) the content of such statements and the
manner in which they misled the plaintiff, and (4) what the
defendants “obtained as consequence of the
Brooks v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.,
116 F.3d 1364, 1371 (11th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
pleading stage, Rules 8 and 9 are read in conjunction with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the reviewing court must accept
all factual allegations in the complaint as true and view
them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). But this
preferential standard of review does not permit all pleadings
adorned with facts to survive to the next stage of
litigation. The Supreme Court has been clear on this point -
a district court should dismiss a claim where a party fails
to plead facts that make the claim facially plausible.
See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
is facially plausible when the court can draw a reasonable
inference, based on the facts pled, that the opposing party
is liable for the alleged misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678. This plausibility standard requires “more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 557 (internal quotation marks omitted)).
the Court is mindful that pro se complaints are to
be held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by an
attorney, Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 967 (11th
Cir. 1986), the Court agrees with Defendants that
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is a shotgun complaint and
must be dismissed. See Doc. 13, ¶¶ 33, 40,
55, 59, 66, 71, 78, 83. A shotgun complaint “contains
several counts, each one incorporating by reference the
allegations of its predecessors, leading to a situation where
most of the counts ... contain irrelevant factual allegations
and legal conclusions.” Strategic Income Fund,
L.L.C. v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d
1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002).
[I]f tolerated, [shotgun pleadings] harm the court by
impeding its ability to administer justice. The time a court
spends managing litigation framed by shotgun pleadings should
be devoted to other cases waiting to be heard. Wasting scarce
judicial and parajudicial resources impedes the due
administration of ...