Eleventh Circuit Defines Standards for Dismissing Shotgun Pleadings and Tolling State Law Claims

Introduction

In Cherelle Fletcher v. City of Madison, No. 23-10873 (11th Cir. Apr. 8, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit addressed procedural and substantive issues arising from a civil rights suit brought by survivors and the estate of a man shot and killed by Madison, Alabama, police officers. The plaintiffs—Cherelle Fletcher (wife), her daughter V.F., and the personal representative of the estate of Dana Sherrod Fletcher (decedent)—alleged multiple constitutional and state‐law claims against the City of Madison, several individual officers, and related municipal actors. Over two years of pleadings and amendments, the district court dismissed the estate’s second amended complaint with prejudice as an impermissible “shotgun pleading,” and it dismissed the state-law wrongful death claim as time-barred. On appeal, key questions included:

Whether the appeal was properly before the Eleventh Circuit given pro se filings by a represented party;
Whether a post-judgment change in the probate court’s appointment of the personal representative warranted substitution under Rule 43;
Whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the second amended complaint as a shotgun pleading under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10;
Whether the wrongful death claim, dismissed with prejudice, was in fact tolled during the pendency of the federal action under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the federal and state constitutional claims, granted substitution of the estate’s new personal representative, and reversed the with-prejudice dismissal of the wrongful death claim—ordering that claim be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Jurisdiction and Substitution. The court held that:

The timely notice of appeal filed by counsel was effective despite pro se filings by the represented plaintiff, because Eleventh Circuit Rule 25-1 precludes consideration of pro se submissions when counsel remains of record.
After the probate court terminated Cherelle Fletcher as co-personal representative of the estate and appointed Shayla Fletcher (the estate’s sister and counsel), Shayla properly moved under Rule 43(b) to substitute herself for the estate’s representative in the appellate proceeding. The court granted substitution.

2. Shotgun Pleading Dismissal. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the panel concluded:

The second amended complaint fell into multiple “shotgun pleading” categories (particularly the second category—“vague and immaterial facts”—and the third category—“lumping together multiple claims and plaintiffs in single counts”).
The district court had given multiple warnings, detailed citations to Eleventh Circuit precedent (Weiland, Vibe Micro, Jackson, Barmapov), and an opportunity to amend. Plaintiffs chose not to correct the identified defects.
Dismissing with prejudice was within the court’s discretion because, after two rounds of amendments and explicit instructions, another chance was futile.

3. Tolling of Wrongful Death Claim. The panel held that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) tolled Alabama’s two-year statute of limitations during the federal action and for 30 days thereafter. Consequently, the district court erred in dismissing the state-law wrongful death claim with prejudice; it must be dismissed without prejudice to permit refiling in state court.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively relied on Eleventh Circuit “shotgun pleading” precedent:

Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015): Defined four categories of shotgun pleadings, emphasized that each type fails to give proper notice to defendants, and warned courts to compel repleading or dismiss.
Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2018): Held that dismissal for shotgun pleading without a proper repleading opportunity can be an abuse of discretion; instructed courts to explain pleading defects explicitly and to allow curing where possible.
Jackson v. Bank of America, N.A., 898 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2018): Reaffirmed that shotgun pleadings must be stricken or dismissed, with one chance to amend; emphasized the importance of conserving judicial resources and preventing abuse of the docket.
Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2021): Reinforced the four-category framework and recognized that shotgun pleadings hamper fair and efficient litigation.
Artis v. District of Columbia, 583 U.S. 61 (2018): Interpreted § 1367(d)’s tolling provision as stopping the state statute of limitations “‘clock’” while the federal claim is pending and for 30 days after dismissal.

Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning can be broken into four principal strands:

Jurisdictional Boundaries of Pro Se Filings: Eleventh Circuit Rule 25-1 bars treating pro se filings from a party represented by counsel as effective. Cherelle’s handwritten letters—while expressing an intent to dismiss—could not deprive the court of jurisdiction once counsel filed the notice of appeal.
Rule 43(b) Substitution: When a probate court intervening after the appeal removed Cherelle as co-personal representative and appointed Shayla as sole personal representative, an “intervening event” rendered Shayla the proper party to continue prosecution of the estate’s claims. This fall within Rule 43(a)(1) procedures for post-judgment substitution of a decedent’s representative, which the court analogized to Rule 43(b).
Dismissing Shotgun Pleadings:
- Federal Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b) require concise statements of claims with numbered paragraphs and separately stated counts. “Shotgun pleadings”—those that adopt all prior paragraphs in every count, lump multiple claims or parties together, or mix immaterial allegations—violate these rules.
- The district court had afforded two opportunities: after the initial complaint and after the first amended complaint, identifying specific pleading “sins” under the second (vague facts) and third (multiple claims in one count) Weiland categories, and encouraging counsel to meet and confer.
- Because Shayla expressly refused to cure the defects, the court did not err in dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice for abuse of discretion.
Section 1367(d) Tolling of State-Law Claims:
- Under § 1367(d), state statutes of limitations on supplemental (state‐law) claims are tolled while a federal lawsuit is pending and for 30 days after dismissal.
- Although Alabama has a two-year limitations period for wrongful death, that period was suspended during this federal action. The district court’s conclusion that the claim expired upon refiling was based on a misreading of non-precedential dicta in McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic and was reversed.
- The wrongful death claim must therefore be dismissed without prejudice to permit refiling in state court.

Impact

This opinion carries significant lessons for federal practitioners throughout the Eleventh Circuit:

“Shotgun pleading” remains a potent ground for dismissal, but courts must clearly identify defects and afford at least one meaningful opportunity to cure before dismissing with prejudice.
Parties should draft complaints with strict adherence to Rules 8 and 10—each count should stand alone, incorporate only necessary allegations, and identify which facts support what claims and against whom.
Personal representatives of estates must monitor probate‐court proceedings closely; a post-judgment appointment change can be recognized on appeal under Rule 43.
Federal § 1367(d) tolling can preserve state‐law claims otherwise vulnerable to limitations defenses, underscoring the importance of carefully tracking service, filing, and tolling timelines.
Pro se filings by a party represented by counsel cannot deprive courts of jurisdiction or undermine counsel’s actions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Shotgun Pleading: A complaint so unfocused or disorganized that defendants cannot identify which facts apply to which claims or which defendants. Four types include:
1. Adopting all prior paragraphs in each count;
2. Mixing vague or immaterial facts;
3. Lumping multiple claims or theories in single counts;
4. Failing to specify which defendant is responsible for which act.
Rule 8(a)(2): Requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Rule 10(b): Requires numbered paragraphs and separate counts for each claim.
Rule 15(a)(2): Directs courts to “freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires”—but leaves dismissal with prejudice appropriate if amendment is futile after fair notice.
Rule 43(a)(1) & (b): Provide procedures for substituting parties (e.g., a personal representative of an estate) when death or other intervening events occur during appeal.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(d): Tolling statute that suspends the limitations period on supplemental state claims while a federal action is pending and for 30 days after dismissal.

Conclusion

Cherelle Fletcher v. City of Madison crystallizes the Eleventh Circuit’s tough stance on shotgun pleadings and clarifies the interplay of federal tolling for state-law claims. Plaintiffs must:

Draft complaints with precision—each count must stand alone, cite only relevant facts, and identify specific defendants;
Be prepared to amend promptly and fully if a shotgun pleading is identified;
Monitor estate‐related litigation for changes in personal representation and invoke Rule 43 promptly;
Leverage § 1367(d) tolling to protect state-law claims from limitations bar.

By combining rigorous pleading requirements with equitable tolling principles, this decision reinforces both procedural discipline and substantive justice in federal civil rights litigation.