Eleventh Circuit Clarifies: After One Instructed Repleader and Explicit Warnings, Pro Se Shotgun Pleadings May Be Dismissed With Prejudice Under Rule 41(b)

Introduction

In this unpublished, per curiam decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Northern District of Georgia’s dismissal with prejudice of a pro se complaint for failure to cure a shotgun pleading after the plaintiff was given explicit instructions, extensions, and warnings.

The case, Alberta Rose Josephine Jones v. Sherry Dudley, No. 23-13480 (11th Cir. Oct. 3, 2025), arose from circumstances surrounding the death of the plaintiff’s brother, Joseph Dudley, and the handling of his death certificate and remains. The plaintiff alleged improprieties by his wife, Sherry Dudley, and by Thomas E. Davis (a funeral director and coroner), along with unnamed defendants. The district court dismissed the amended complaint as a shotgun pleading and offered a final opportunity to replead with detailed guidance. When the plaintiff failed to timely file a compliant amended complaint despite repeated extensions and explicit warnings, the court dismissed the action with prejudice. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Key issues on appeal were: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in deeming the amended complaint an impermissible shotgun pleading under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10; and (2) whether the court abused its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice under Rule 41(b) when the plaintiff failed to comply with its repleader order.

Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit held the amended complaint was a shotgun pleading because it failed to connect facts to specific causes of action and did not attribute actionable conduct to individual defendants, thereby failing to provide fair notice of the claims and grounds.
The district court properly followed Eleventh Circuit guidance by granting one opportunity to replead with explicit instructions on how to cure the defects (Weiland; Vibe Micro).
After multiple extensions and two express warnings that failure to amend would result in dismissal with prejudice, the plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing with prejudice under Rule 41(b) and its inherent docket-management authority (Betty K Agencies; Moon; Weiland).
Standard of review for both rulings—shotgun pleading dismissal and Rule 41(b) dismissal—is abuse of discretion (Vibe Micro; Zocaras). The panel found no abuse.
Disposition: Affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007): Cited for Rule 8’s requirement that a complaint provide a “short and plain statement” giving the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. The court applied Twombly’s notice requirement to assess whether the pleading adequately connected facts to legal claims.
Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015): The court drew upon Weiland’s taxonomy of shotgun pleadings. The panel identified the amended complaint as (i) replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not tied to a cause of action (Weiland’s second category), and (ii) alleging multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying who did what (Weiland’s fourth category).
Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2018): Cited for two propositions: (1) abuse-of-discretion review of shotgun-pleading dismissals, and (2) the practice that, upon identifying a shotgun pleading, the district court should generally give one chance to replead with instructions. The district court complied with Vibe Micro by providing a roadmap and a final opportunity to amend.
Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2008): Reinforces liberal construction of pro se pleadings, a principle the court acknowledged. However, leniency does not excuse noncompliance with basic pleading rules.
Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2014): Emphasizes that courts cannot act as de facto counsel nor rewrite a deficient pleading to sustain an action. This underscores limits on judicial solicitude for pro se litigants when pleadings do not meet Rule 8/10 standards.
Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479 (11th Cir. 2006): Cited for the standard of review—abuse of discretion—when a case is dismissed for failure to comply with a court order.
Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2005): Sets the high bar for dismissal with prejudice: a clear pattern of delay or willful contempt and a finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice. The appellate court concluded these criteria were satisfied on this record given repeated extensions and explicit warnings.
Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989): Holds that dismissal upon disregard of an order—especially after forewarning—is generally not an abuse of discretion. The district court’s repeated warnings fit squarely within Moon’s rationale.

Legal Reasoning

1) Shotgun pleading determination

The court began with the baseline rules: Rule 8 requires a short, plain statement showing entitlement to relief; Rule 10(b) calls for claims stated in numbered paragraphs, each limited to a single set of circumstances. A complaint violating these rules is commonly labeled a shotgun pleading.

Applying Weiland, the panel found two core defects:

Conclusions untethered to causes of action: The amended complaint recited facts about the decedent’s death, listed various Georgia statutes concerning death certificates and coroner procedures, and alleged “criminal activity,” but did not explain how those facts and laws created any specific civil cause of action or entitlement to relief. This squarely fits Weiland’s second category.
Non-specific, group allegations: The pleading lumped defendants together, failing to identify which defendant engaged in which conduct (e.g., whose misrepresentation or unlawful removal of the body), thus depriving each defendant of fair notice. This matches Weiland’s fourth category.

Although the court construed the pro se pleading liberally (Alba), it concluded that leniency does not extend to allowing a complaint that does not provide fair notice of claims, nor may the court rewrite the pleading (Campbell). Consistent with Vibe Micro, the district court dismissed the pleading as a shotgun complaint but afforded a final opportunity to replead with detailed instructions on how to comply.

2) Dismissal with prejudice for failure to comply with the repleader order

A district court may dismiss for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order under Rule 41(b) or its inherent authority. To dismiss with prejudice, Eleventh Circuit law requires: (a) a clear pattern of delay or willful contempt; and (b) a specific finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice (Betty K Agencies). The court also recognizes that where a litigant is forewarned, dismissal often is not an abuse of discretion (Moon).

The record reflected multiple extensions, a detailed repleader roadmap, and two explicit warnings that failure to amend by the set deadline could result in dismissal with prejudice. The plaintiff still did not file an amended complaint. The panel held that, in these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that dismissal with prejudice was warranted and that lesser sanctions would not suffice.

Note: In the body of its analysis, the panel briefly states the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing “without prejudice,” which appears to be a typographical slip. Elsewhere in the opinion—including the procedural history and the ultimate holding—the court consistently characterizes the dismissal as with prejudice.

Impact and Practical Implications

For pro se litigants: Pro se status does not excuse noncompliance with Rule 8 and Rule 10. Alleging facts and listing statutes is not enough; plaintiffs must articulate specific civil causes of action, connect facts to each element, and identify each defendant’s role. Failure to cure after a clear, instructed chance—especially following multiple extensions and warnings—can lead to dismissal with prejudice.
For district courts: The decision reaffirms a procedural blueprint: upon finding a shotgun pleading, provide a concrete, itemized repleader order; give a fair but firm deadline; and warn that noncompliance will lead to dismissal with prejudice. When plaintiffs disregard such an order, dismissal with prejudice is likely to be affirmed on appeal.
Pleading practice: Citing criminal wrongdoing or listing statutes, without identifying a cognizable civil claim and its elements, will not satisfy Rule 8. Complaints must separate claims into counts, tie factual allegations to elements, and specify the conduct attributable to each defendant.
Unreached merits: The opinion does not address the substantive viability of any Georgia law claims related to wrongful death, death certification, or the handling of remains, because the case was resolved on procedural grounds.
Precedential weight: Although unpublished and non-precedential, the decision is a clear and recent application of Weiland and Vibe Micro principles within the Eleventh Circuit and will be persuasive to district courts managing pro se pleadings and docket control.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Shotgun pleading: A complaint that violates basic pleading rules, commonly because it:
- Is packed with vague or immaterial allegations not tied to a legal claim;
- Fails to separate distinct claims into separate counts;
- Combines multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying who did what; or
- Repeats all prior allegations in every count so the last count absorbs the entire complaint.
The central problem is lack of fair notice to defendants of the claims and their factual bases.
Pro se leniency vs. compliance: Courts read pro se filings liberally, but litigants must still follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Courts cannot rewrite a complaint to fit a legal theory.
“With prejudice” vs. “without prejudice”: Dismissal “with prejudice” ends the case on the merits as to the claims dismissed and generally bars refiling. “Without prejudice” allows the plaintiff to refile, typically after correcting defects.
Abuse of discretion (appellate review): A deferential standard—an appellate court will not reverse unless the lower court’s decision was arbitrary, irrational, or outside the range of choices permitted by law and facts.
Rule 41(b) dismissal: A mechanism for dismissing an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or to comply with procedural rules or a court order. Dismissal with prejudice is reserved for clear patterns of delay or willful disobedience and when lesser sanctions would not suffice.
Per curiam, non-argument calendar, not for publication: “Per curiam” means the decision is by the court collectively. “Non-argument calendar” indicates the case was decided on the briefs without oral argument. “Not for publication” indicates the opinion is non-precedential (though often citable as persuasive authority).
Doe defendants: Placeholder names for unidentified defendants. The opinion mentions “Does 1–10” but does not address their propriety. Courts often restrict fictitious-party pleading unless the description permits identification for service.

The District Court’s Repleader Roadmap: A Usable Blueprint

The district court’s instructions, endorsed by the Eleventh Circuit’s affirmance, illustrate what a compliant amended complaint should include:

A background section with facts relevant to all claims, set out in numbered paragraphs.
A separate section for each cause of action that:
- Identifies the legal elements of the claim, and
- Pleads facts showing entitlement to relief for that claim.
A statement of the relief sought and why the plaintiff is entitled to that relief.
For each count, a clear attribution of specific conduct to each individual defendant.

Plaintiffs and counsel can treat this as a checklist for curing shotgun-pleading defects.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Jones v. Dudley reaffirms a disciplined approach to shotgun pleadings and Rule 41(b) dismissals. Even for pro se litigants, courts will enforce Rule 8 and Rule 10’s baseline requirements: clearly identify claims, tie facts to legal elements, and specify each defendant’s role. District courts should give one informed opportunity to replead with explicit instructions and warn of the consequences of noncompliance. When a plaintiff, after multiple extensions and explicit warnings, fails to amend as ordered, dismissal with prejudice is a permissible and affirmable sanction.

The key takeaway is straightforward: clarity, specificity, and adherence to court-ordered deadlines are indispensable. Failure to provide fair notice through a properly structured complaint—especially after receiving a clear roadmap to cure defects—can end a case with prejudice.