Michael Andrews v. Ric Bradshaw

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Michael Andrews’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice after finding that it used the wrong prisoner civil-rights form, constituted an impermissible shotgun pleading, and was unsupported by a legally sufficient in forma pauperis application. The court granted Andrews until February 27, 2026, to file an amended complaint and either pay the filing fee or submit a compliant IFP motion with a six-month account statement. The court also administratively closed the case pending compliance and further screening.

Holdings

1. A court must screen a prisoner complaint seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer and may dismiss it when it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief from an immune defendant.
2. A pro se prisoner civil-rights complaint in the Southern District of Florida must substantially follow the court-prescribed form and must be signed under penalty of perjury.
3. A complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading when it fails to present allegations in properly organized paragraphs and separate each cause of action into its own count, thereby preventing defendants and the court from determining which facts support which claims.
4. A prisoner seeking to proceed without prepaying the filing fee must submit the required affidavit and a certified trust-account statement covering the six months preceding the filing of the complaint.
5. When a more carefully drafted complaint might state a claim, a pro se plaintiff must be given at least one opportunity to amend before dismissal with prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it failed to state a plausible claim and violated the Federal Rules and Local Rule 88.2.
2. Whether the complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading because it failed to use the prescribed prisoner civil-rights form, failed to present allegations in numbered paragraphs, and failed to separate causes of action into distinct counts.
3. Whether Andrews's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was legally sufficient when it lacked a certified six-month inmate trust-account statement.

Disposition

dismissed