Case Activity (45)

1. Order | Filed: September 08, 2026 | Entered: September 08, 2026 Battle v. Citibank, N.A. et al

   Consumer Credit | Florida Middle

   Order on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

   ENDORSED ORDER: Upon review, the Court finds that 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). Much of 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." Id. at 1321-22. The vague and conclusory allegations in the complaint do not provide defendants 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). Also, each count in the complaint incorporates the factual background allegations, which often allege that "Respondents" took certain actions, thus failing to properly "specify[] which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions." Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED, and the plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint no later than September 25, 2026. The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is moot and thus DENIED without prejudice. If the 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 the plaintiff fails to amend the complaint, submits another shotgun pleading, or does not pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis at the time he files, this action will be dismissed without further notice.
   
   If electing to refile, the Court notes that multiple claims also appear to run afoul of various doctrines barring subject matter jurisdiction. For example, the complaint seeks to sue an individual who is entitled to judicial immunity for the allegedly harmful acts. Although the plaintiff claims that Rooker-Feldman does not bar any of his claims, he requests, in part, declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of state court orders. The complaint also seeks to improperly sue under a federal criminal statute. Should the plaintiff amend, he would be prudent to also address these concerns.
   
   Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 9/8/2026. (DF)

2. Order | Filed: September 08, 2026 | Entered: September 08, 2026 Battle v. Citibank, N.A. et al

   Consumer Credit | Florida Middle

   Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief Order on Motion to Appear Telephonically / Video

   ENDORSED ORDER: The pro se plaintiff's motion for e-filing access (Doc. 4) and motion to appear virtually at any hearing (Doc. 5) are DENIED. The plaintiff has not shown a sufficient basis to grant an exception to the general rule that pro se litigants must file paper documents with the Court. Hooker v. Wilkie, No. 8:20-CV-1248-T-02CPT, 2020 WL 6947482, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 4, 2020). The Court notes that any member of the public can access electronic records of the federal courts by registering online with PACER, and pro se litigants may file paper documents by mail. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 9/8/2026. (DF)

3. 43 additional result(s)