Shotgun Pleadings, Pro Se Latitude, and Rule 58 Waiver: The Eleventh Circuit’s Reaffirmation in Moore v. Southern Company

Introduction

In an unpublished, per curiam decision, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of a pro se litigant’s amended complaint as an impermissible “shotgun pleading.” The case, Michael Moore v. Southern Company et al. (No. 25-12302, Oct. 24, 2025), arose from a dispute over electric service in Alabama and included wide-ranging federal and state claims—spanning RICO, constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state-law theories—against a utility company, its affiliates, and various state officials.

The decision reemphasizes several recurring themes in Eleventh Circuit pleading jurisprudence: (1) even pro se litigants must comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10; (2) district courts may dismiss repleaded shotgun complaints, particularly after providing an opportunity to amend; (3) courts may dismiss the entire complaint as a shotgun pleading without addressing every count individually; and (4) a party cannot capitalize on the lack of a separate Rule 58 judgment document where there is no prejudice and the appeal is timely under Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis.

The panel—Judges Branch, Lagoa, and Kidd—decided the appeal without oral argument on the Non-Argument Calendar. While unpublished and therefore non-precedential, the opinion synthesizes and applies settled Eleventh Circuit doctrine on shotgun pleadings, providing practical guidance to district courts, practitioners, and pro se litigants.

Summary of the Opinion

Michael Moore, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleged that Alabama Power refused to provide electric service unless he paid debts he claimed he did not owe. After an adverse resolution before the Alabama Public Service Commission (APSC), Moore sued in federal court, asserting RICO, § 1983, state-law violations, and requesting damages and injunctive relief. The district court:

Dismissed claims against state officials on Eleventh Amendment grounds;
Denied injunctive relief for failure to comply with Rule 65(c)’s security requirement;
Dismissed remaining claims as a shotgun pleading, with leave to amend and specific instructions on how to cure.

Moore amended, but the court again found the complaint to be a shotgun pleading—repeating allegations across counts and failing to separate distinct causes of action—and dismissed without prejudice for noncompliance with its repleader order. On appeal, Moore argued that the amended complaint gave adequate notice and that the court erred by not discussing each count individually; he also raised a Rule 58 separate-document argument.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. It held that:

The amended complaint remained a shotgun pleading, violating Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b), because it repeatedly reincorporated allegations, duplicated claims across counts, and did not separate distinct causes of action;
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice, particularly after having explained the defects and provided an opportunity to replead;
A court may dismiss the entire pleading as shotgun without conducting a count-by-count analysis when the pleading as a whole fails to give adequate notice;
Moore’s Rule 58 objection failed because he timely appealed and suffered no prejudice from the absence of a separate judgment document.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The panel anchored its decision in the Eleventh Circuit’s well-developed shotgun-pleading jurisprudence:

Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015): The court relied on Weiland’s four categories of shotgun pleadings:
1. Counts adopting all preceding allegations;
2. Complaints rife with conclusory, vague, or immaterial facts;
3. Failure to separate each cause of action into a different count;
4. Multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying who did what.
The Moore complaint primarily offended categories (1) and (3), by repeating and reincorporating allegations across counts and failing to segregate legally distinct claims into separate counts.
Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2018): The panel reiterated that district courts should strike shotgun pleadings and allow one opportunity to replead, explaining defects so the plaintiff can cure them. If the amended pleading still fails, the court may dismiss—and may do so with prejudice if the plaintiff does not seek further leave. Here, the district court gave Moore a clear roadmap and a second chance; he did not cure the defects.
Jackson v. Bank of America, 898 F.3d 1348 (11th Cir. 2018): Reinforces the court’s authority to address shotgun pleadings sua sponte and require a compliant repleader.
Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2021): Clarifies that shotgun pleadings violate Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b), and confirms abuse-of-discretion review for such dismissals.
Roy v. Ivy, 53 F.4th 1338 (11th Cir. 2022) and Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007): While filings by pro se litigants are liberally construed, they must still comply with the Federal Rules.
Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2005) and Ameritas Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2005): Affirm abuse-of-discretion review for rule-based dismissals and articulate the governing standard.
Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1989): Supports dismissal under Rule 41(b) when a party disregards a court order, especially after being forewarned. The panel noted this as an additional justification, given Moore’s failure to heed the repleader instructions.
McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301 (11th Cir. 2025): Emphasizes that dismissal without prejudice is “rarely” an abuse of discretion because the plaintiff can ordinarily refile. The panel invoked this principle to underscore the district court’s latitude.
Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381 (1978): Allows appellate review notwithstanding the absence of a separate Rule 58 judgment document where no party is misled or prejudiced and the appeal is timely. The panel applied Mallis to reject Moore’s Rule 58 argument.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in three straightforward steps.

The amended complaint remained a shotgun pleading. Despite the district court’s specific guidance after the first dismissal, the amended complaint:
- Repeated the same factual allegations across multiple counts (for example, Count 9 largely repeated Count 3 regarding Alabama Power’s authority to collect debts);
- Failed to separate distinct causes of action into different counts, violating Rule 10(b);
- Used wholesale reincorporation and duplication, impeding the defendants’ and the court’s ability to discern which factual allegations supported which legal claims, contrary to Rule 8(a)(2)’s “short and plain statement” requirement.
The defects matched classic Weiland categories and deprived defendants of adequate notice of the grounds of each claim.
Dismissal without prejudice was within the district court’s discretion. The district court gave Moore one opportunity to cure and explained how to fix his pleading. On failing to cure, dismissal without prejudice was justified by the shotgun nature of the complaint and by Moore’s noncompliance with the court’s repleader order. The panel underscored the permissibility of this outcome by citing both Vibe Micro (one chance to amend) and McNair (dismissal without prejudice rarely constitutes an abuse).
Global dismissal did not require a count-by-count discussion, and the Rule 58 argument failed. Where the pleading as a whole is shotgun, a district court may dismiss the entire complaint without discussing each count individually. As to Rule 58, the absence of a separate judgment document is a “mere technicality” when the appellant timely appeals and no prejudice ensues, per Mallis.

Impact and Practical Implications

Although unpublished and non-binding, the decision fortifies several practical points in Eleventh Circuit practice:

Pro se litigants must still comply with Rules 8 and 10. Liberal construction does not excuse shotgun pleading. Courts will provide one chance to amend, but persistent noncompliance risks dismissal—sometimes with prejudice if no further leave is sought.
District courts retain broad discretion to manage shotgun pleadings. Trial courts may dismiss globally without count-by-count analysis where the pleading’s structure itself obscures which facts support which claims. The use of McNair strengthens district courts’ comfort in dismissing without prejudice after repleader.
Rule 58 separate-document challenges rarely aid appellants who timely appeal without prejudice. Parties cannot convert a technical omission into reversible error absent confusion or prejudice about appellate deadlines.
Early procedural enforcement curbs sprawling litigation. By requiring coherent pleadings before discovery, courts preserve resources and ensure that serious claims—such as RICO or § 1983 claims—are anchored to specific facts and clearly identified defendants.
Injunctive relief requires attention to Rule 65(c). While not the focus on appeal, the district court’s denial of injunctive relief for failure to post security highlights a common stumbling block. Courts possess discretion about the bond, but litigants should address it explicitly.

Complex Concepts Simplified

What is a “shotgun pleading”?

A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates basic pleading rules—typically by mixing different claims together, repeating allegations across multiple counts, or failing to specify which defendant did what. The Eleventh Circuit recognizes four common types (from Weiland), all of which share a central defect: they don’t give defendants fair notice of each claim and the facts supporting it.

What do Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b) require?

Rule 8(a)(2): A “short and plain statement” showing entitlement to relief—clear, concise, and linked to identifiable facts.
Rule 10(b): Numbered paragraphs, each limited to a single set of circumstances; separate counts for each cause of action, where practicable.

What does “dismissal without prejudice” mean?

It means the case is dismissed but not on the merits, and the plaintiff is generally free to refile (subject to limitations like statutes of limitations or preclusion doctrines). The Eleventh Circuit notes that such dismissals are “rarely” an abuse of discretion, because the plaintiff usually retains the ability to reformulate and reassert claims properly.

How much leeway do pro se litigants get?

Courts interpret pro se filings liberally, but even pro se litigants must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the Eleventh Circuit, courts typically grant one opportunity to fix shotgun pleadings after explaining the defects. Failure to cure can lead to dismissal.

What is the Rule 58 “separate document” requirement?

Rule 58 generally requires a separate document setting out the judgment to clarify when the clock for appealing starts. Under Bankers Trust v. Mallis, if a party timely appeals and no one is misled or prejudiced, the lack of a separate judgment will not upend the appeal.

Why did the district court deny injunctive relief?

Rule 65(c) requires security (a bond) to cover potential wrongful-injunction damages. The district court denied injunctive relief because Moore did not comply with this requirement. Courts have discretion in setting or waiving bonds, but litigants must address the issue directly.

Practical Drafting Guidance to Avoid Shotgun Pleadings

Use clear headings. Create a separate count for each distinct cause of action (e.g., Count 1: § 1983 First Amendment Retaliation; Count 2: § 1983 Fourteenth Amendment Due Process; Count 3: RICO § 1962(c), etc.).
For each count, specify:
- The legal theory and its elements;
- The defendant(s) against whom the count is brought;
- The specific facts supporting each element as to each defendant;
- The relief sought (damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief).
Avoid wholesale reincorporation. Do not “incorporate all prior paragraphs” into every count if doing so obscures which facts apply to which claims.
Match facts to defendants. If there are multiple defendants, state who did what, when, and how it violates the law.
Keep it concise. Include only facts that support the specific claim in that count; omit immaterial or repetitive allegations.
Heed repleader instructions. If the court explains defects, address them precisely in any amended complaint.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Moore v. Southern Company reinforces a settled but vital message: even pro se litigants must present a clear, structured complaint that complies with Rules 8 and 10. District courts have both the authority and the responsibility to strike shotgun pleadings, to provide guidance for a repleader, and—if the defects persist—to dismiss, often without prejudice. The panel’s citation to McNair underscores that dismissals without prejudice are generally within the trial court’s discretion, while its reliance on Mallis confirms that Rule 58 technicalities will not undo a timely, prejudice-free appeal.

For practitioners and pro se litigants alike, the opinion offers clear drafting lessons: segregate claims by count, avoid indiscriminate incorporation, tie facts to each element and each defendant, and follow the court’s repleader directions. Doing so ensures that serious federal claims—such as RICO and constitutional violations—reach the merits rather than being sidelined by avoidable procedural missteps.