Case Activity (231)

1. Order | Filed: August 24, 2026 | Entered: August 24, 2026 Battle v. Truist Financial Corporation et al

   Consumer Credit | Florida Middle

   Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

   ENDORSED ORDER: "Petitioner's Motion for All Hearings to be Conducted by Remote Videoconference or Telephone" (Doc. 4) is denied. Plaintiff is advised that he filed suit in this District, and in doing so, despite proceeding pro se, he is expected to be present at any court-ordered hearings and/or case management conferences just as an attorney of record is expected to be present. Plaintiff is reminded that even pro se plaintiffs must conform with procedural rules, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida. Litigation - particularly in federal court - is difficult, and Plaintiff should consider hiring an attorney. If he is unable to afford counsel, he should consider the resources available to pro se litigants, including the Legal Information Program operated by the Tampa Bay Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, and the Middle District of Florida's guide to assist pro se litigants proceeding in federal court, which is located on the Court's website. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Barber on 8/24/2026. (RL)

2. Order | Filed: August 24, 2026 | Entered: August 24, 2026 Battle v. Truist Financial Corporation et al

   Consumer Credit | Florida Middle

   Order on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

   ENDORSED ORDER: Upon review, the Court finds the complaint (Doc. 1) constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1324 (11th Cir. 2015). The complaint "is guilty of the venial sin of being replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action." See id. The complaint also violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) because it does not contain "a short and plain statement of the claim[s] showing the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). As a whole, the complaint is so vague and confusing that the defendants are not given sufficient notice as to the nature of the claims and the facts upon which they are based. See Jackson v. Bank of America, N.A., 898 F.3d 1348,1358 (11th Cir. 2018) ("The pleading is vague and ambiguous such that [the defendants have] to guess as to... the facts upon which [the plaintiff relies] in support.") (quotation omitted). Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint no later than September 8, 2026. The motion to proceed without costs (Doc. 2) is denied without prejudice. If Plaintiff amends his complaint, he must pay the $405 filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis at the time that he files the amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to amend the complaint, submits another shotgun pleading, or does not pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis, this action may be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Barber on 8/24/2026. (RL)

3. 229 additional result(s)