United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
FEDERICO A. MORENO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte review
of the record.
14, 2019, pro se plaintiff Omar Mohsen Ibrahim Fouad
("Plaintiff) filed a complaint against multiple
defendants, including Jackson Memorial Hospital, for
allegedly violating his civil rights. In specifying the civil
rights allegedly violated, the Plaintiff wrote that "all
of them" were. (D.E. 1). According to the Plaintiff, on
August 8, 2018, he suffered physical and mental injury as a
result of police brutality. The Plaintiff identifies the
officer who inflicted the harm, but does not name him as a
defendant. Instead, he names four others and is suing them
for allegedly covering up the police brutality and depriving
him of video evidence of the incident. The cover up, he
writes, proves medical negligence on behalf of Jackson
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547
(2007)). This requirement "give[s] the defendant fair
notice of what the . .. claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (second
alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). When considering a motion to
dismiss, the court takes the plaintiffs factual allegations
as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284
(11th Cir. 2008). Here, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro
se, he is entitled to a liberal construction of the
complaint. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21 (1972) (per curiam).
review of the complaint, it appears that all of Plaintiffs
claims, including that Jackson Memorial Hospital attempted to
"cover up the Police Brutality ... and [it] did it
deceitfully and fraudulently," do not amount to any
recognized cause of action in federal court. (D.E. 1 at 4).
To the extent that Plaintiffs claim for "deceit" is
a claim for fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation, which it
is not, Plaintiff has not pled any particularized facts
supporting the claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
Consequently, even under the relaxed pleading standard
afforded to pro se litigants, see Abele v.
Tolbert, 130 Fed.Appx. 342, 343 (11th Cir. 2005),
Plaintiff fails to state a claim. The legal theories as
presented are indisputably meritless against the defendants.
See Davis v. Kvalheim, 261 Fed.Appx. 231, 234 (11th
Cir. 2008) (holding that complaint may be sua sponte
dismissed before service of process where its legal theories
are indisputably meritless).
addition, Plaintiffs complaint is in the form of an
impermissible shotgun pleading, as it appears to violate the
one-claim-per-count rule. Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). That rule
requires a party to limit its claim "as far as
practicable to a single set of circumstances," and that
"[i]f doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded
on a separate transaction or occurrence ... be stated in a
separate count." Id. Plaintiff does neither
here. See Solar Star Sys. LLC v. Bellsouth Telecomms.,
Inc., No. 10-21105-CIV, 2011 WL 3648267, at *6 (S.D.
Fla. Aug. 15, 2011); see also City of Fort Lauderdale v.
Scott, No. 10-61122-CIV, 2011 WL 3157206, at *5 (S.D.
Fla. July 26, 2011) (finding it "insufficient to entitle
a claim an 'Implied Right of Action under [multiple
statutes]' and not specify in the claim under which
particular ... law a party is proceeding").
because this Court is unable to ascertain any plausible claim
for relief from Plaintiffs complaint, and because Plaintiffs
complaint is a shotgun pleading, the instant action is
DISMISSED. Although courts "should freely give leave [to
amend a pleading] when justice so requires," Fed R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(2), an action may be dismissed in full "if a
more carefully drafted complaint could not state a
claim." Ziemba v. Cascade Int'l, Inc., 256
F.3d 1194, 1213 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Bank v.
Pitt,928 F.2d 1108, 1112 (11th Cir. 1991)). A more
carefully drafted complaint in the instant case would still