Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Curtis Gorham v. Elijah Smiley

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-12693
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Nature of Suit: NEW

• Opinion

• Authorities (9)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (6.7K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12693 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 1 of 8

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

---

No. 25-12693
Non-Argument Calendar

---

CURTIS GORHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus

ELIJAH SMILEY,
Judge,
GARY LAVINE,
Dr.,
Defendants-Appellees.

---

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 5:24-cv-00280-MW-MJF

---

Before BRANCH, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 25-12693 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 2 of 8

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12693

Curtis Gorham appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his civil complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. After
review, we affirm.
I. Background
Gorham, proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint against
“120 [unnamed] parties,” containing general, conclusory
allegations of “conspiracy, malicious prosecution, false arrest,
poisoning by police,” and issues with various actions taken in
various state court cases he had in Florida. Gorham also
successfully moved to proceed in forma pauperis. A magistrate
judge sua sponte preliminarily screened the complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2), and concluded, in relevant part, that the
complaint violated the rules of civil procedure concerning pleading
and joinder. The magistrate judge explained what Gorham needed
to do to fix the deficiencies and dismissed the complaint without
prejudice with instructions for Gorham to file an amended
complaint.
Thereafter, Gorham filed a motion for rehearing of the
magistrate judge’s order; a motion requesting appointment of a
guardian ad litem because Gorham was “incompetent”1; and a
motion for appointment of counsel because he was indigent,
“mentally incompetent,” and had been found “vexatious in a
hearing in the state court prior to removal to federal court.” The
court denied these motions.

1 Gorham did not specify the basis of his alleged incompetency.
USCA11 Case: 25-12693 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 3 of 8

25-12693 Opinion of the Court 3

Gorham then filed an amended complaint, but he did not
clarify who the defendants were or what specific claims he sought
to raise. Instead, he again took issue with various actions taken in
his various Florida state court cases and asserted that he had
“removed” the present case from state to federal court. He
generally asserted that the action “include[d] but [was] not limited
to a ‘Mass Action’ to include medical malpractice, personal injury,
42 USC 1983 Civil Rights and various other causes of action”
against “100 parties,” including doctors, nurses, medical practices,
hospitals, hospital officials and employees, state court judges, state
courts and court employees, financial institutions, various Florida
police departments, and other individuals. He included allegations
related to inadequate medical care that he received in Florida,
issues that he had with certain judicial rulings in his state court
actions, and recitations of various Florida law provisions that he
believed were relevant to his cases.
A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation
(“R&R”), recommending that the amended complaint be
dismissed with prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading.
Gorham objected to the R&R, arguing that he could not file a
compliant complaint because he had not been provided counsel.
He maintained that counsel was necessary because this case was “a
mass action based on state court fraud also by a[n] indigent litigant
[who was] ‘incompetent’ for the past 18 years as far as the
government [was] concerned.” Without counsel, he maintained
that his right to access the courts was denied. He then reiterated
USCA11 Case: 25-12693 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 4 of 8

4 Opinion of the Court 25-12693

some of his allegations related to the medical care he received in
Florida and the rulings in his state court cases.
The district court adopted the R&R over Gorham’s
objections with the exception that it rejected the recommendation
to dismiss the case with prejudice. Instead, it dismissed the
complaint without prejudice thereby leaving Gorham the
opportunity to refile. This appeal followed, and we appointed
counsel to represent Gorham in this appeal.
II. Discussion
Gorham does not challenge the district court’s
determination that the amended complaint was a shotgun
pleading. Instead, he takes issue generally with the district court’s
failure to appoint him counsel and reiterates the issues he has with
various actions taken in his state court cases.
“When an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal
one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment,
he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and
it follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.” Sapuppo v. All-
state Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014).
We “review a district court’s decision not to appoint counsel
for abuse of discretion.” Smith v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cnty., 487 F.3d
1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2007). “A plaintiff in a civil case has no
constitutional right to counsel.” Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312, 1320
(11th Cir. 1999). “A court may, however, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 (e)(1), appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff.” Id. “The
district court has broad discretion in making this decision, and
USCA11 Case: 25-12693 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 5 of 8

25-12693 Opinion of the Court 5

should appoint counsel only in exceptional circumstances.” Id.
(citation omitted). Such exceptional circumstances exist “where
the facts and legal issues are so novel or complex as to require the
assistance of a trained practitioner.” Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088,
1096 (11th Cir. 1990).
“A district court has the inherent authority to control its
docket and ensure the prompt resolution of lawsuits, which
includes the ability to dismiss a complaint on shotgun pleading
grounds.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th
Cir. 2018) (quotations omitted). We review the district court’s
dismissal of a complaint on shotgun pleading grounds for abuse of
discretion. Id. at 1294.
“A shotgun pleading is a complaint that violates either
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both.”
Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2021). Rule 8
requires that the complaint set forth “a short and plain statement
of the claim” demonstrating an entitlement to relief, and Rule 10
requires that a plaintiff “state [his] claims . . . in numbered
paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of
circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Rule
10 further provides that each claim be stated in separate counts “[i]f
doing so would promote clarity.” Id. R. 10(b). As we have
previously explained, there are approximately four types of
shotgun pleadings. Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792
F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2015).
USCA11 Case: 25-12693 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 6 of 8

6 Opinion of the Court 25-12693

The most common type—by a long shot—is a
complaint containing multiple counts where each
count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts,
causing each successive count to carry all that came
before and the last count to be a combination of the
entire complaint. The next most common type . . . is
a complaint that does not commit the mortal sin of
re-alleging all preceding counts but is guilty of the
venial sin of being replete with conclusory, vague,
and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any
particular cause of action. The third type of shotgun
pleading is one that commits the sin of not separating
into a different count each cause of action or claim
for relief. Fourth, and finally, there is the relatively
rare sin of asserting multiple claims against multiple
defendants without specifying which of the
defendants are responsible for which acts or
omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is
brought against.
Id. at 1321–23 (footnotes omitted).
We have repeatedly condemned the use of shotgun
pleadings. See Barmapov, 986 F.3d at 1324; Magluta v. Samples, 256
F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). And we have explained that where
a party files a shotgun pleading, “the district court should strike the
pleading and instruct [the party] to replead the case . . . even when
the other party does not move to strike the pleading.” Jackson v.
Bank of Am., 898 F.3d 1348, 1357–58 (11th Cir. 2018) (alteration
adopted) (quotations omitted); see also Woldeab v. DeKalb Cnty. Bd.
of Educ., 885 F.3d 1289, 1291–92 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining that
USCA11 Case: 25-12693 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 7 of 8

25-12693 Opinion of the Court 7

generally, where a more carefully drafted complaint might state a
claim, the district court abuses its discretion if it does not provide a
pro se plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend before the court
dismisses with prejudice). In dismissing the improper shotgun
pleading, the district court should explain how the pleading
violated the rules of civil procedure so that the plaintiff can remedy
those issues in his next pleading. Vibe Micro, 878 F.3d at 1296.
However, if the plaintiff again files an amended complaint that fails
to correct the identified deficiencies, then the district court may
dismiss the case. Id. at 1295–96.
Here, to the extent that Gorham appeals the district court’s
denial of his motion for appointment of counsel, he failed to show
that the district court abused its discretion. Although Gorham
asserted that he needed counsel because he was indigent, “mentally
incompetent,” and had been deemed “vexatious” in state court,
none of those grounds demonstrate exceptional circumstances for
the appointment of counsel. Specifically, while mental
incompetency may present valid exceptional circumstances
warranting the appointment of counsel, Gorham failed to explain
to the district court the basis for his mental incompetency
allegation or how his alleged incompetence affected his ability to
present his case. Furthermore, he failed to assert any novel facts or
legal issues that would require the assistance of a trained
practitioner. See Fowler, 899 F.2d at 1096. Accordingly, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Gorham’s motion for appointment of counsel.
USCA11 Case: 25-12693 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/18/2026 Page: 8 of 8

8 Opinion of the Court 25-12693

Turning to the dismissal of the complaint, as an initial
matter, by failing to challenge the district court’s determination
that his amended complaint was an impermissible shotgun
pleading, Gorham arguably abandoned the issue. Sapuppo, 739
F.3d at 680.
Even assuming he did not abandon the issue, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the amended
complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. Gorham’s
amended complaint was a shotgun pleading because it contained
conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected
to a particular count. Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1321–23 (explaining that
one type of shotgun pleading is one that is “replete with
conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected
to any particular cause of action”). The amended complaint also
failed to separate out the causes of action or connect any causes of
action with any particular defendant in violation of the rules of civil
procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
Therefore, the district court properly dismissed the complaint. See
Vibe Micro, 878 F.3d at 1296. Moreover, the dismissal was without
prejudice, which means that Gorham is free to refile his complaint.
See Dynes v. Army Air Force Exch. Serv., 720 F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir.
1983) (explaining that generally a dismissal without prejudice is not
an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.