Opinion
No. 09-12947 Non-Argument Calendar.
October 23, 2009.
Sherri Jefferson, Jonesboro, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Laura Louise Lones, Office of the Attorney General, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. D.C. Docket No. 08-02419-CV-RLV-1.
Before BIRCH, HULL and HILL, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court granting the defendants-appellees' motion to dismiss the plaintiff-appellant's action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983). The complaint was seeking relief of some kind with respect to Georgia statutes relating to the adjudication of minors as delinquent by juvenile courts, and committing them to the custody of the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice.
The plaintiff-appellant is styled as "B.L.E., by and through her next friend and counsel, Sherri Jefferson; on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated." While the State of Georgia was an original defendant, the styled defendants-appellees are four persons. Sonny Perdue, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia; Albert Murray, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Juvenile Justice; Amy Howell, in her individual and official capacity as the Legal Services Director and in her official capacity with the Department of Juvenile Justice; and Rob Rosenbloom, in his official capacity with the Department of Juvenile Justice.
On November 10, 2008, District Judge Robert L. Vining, Jr. granted the plaintiff-appellant's motion for permission to file a more definite statement. In his order, he instructed appellant's counsel to file a complaint succinctly and clearly setting forth specific facts giving rise to each specific alleged constitutional violation, without any extraneous matter. Appellant's counsel then filed the sixth (6th) effort to state appellant's complaint.
On May 6, 2009, the district court granted the defendants-appellees' motion to dismiss on the basis that the plaintiff-appellant, in her proposed sixth amended complaint, had still filed nothing more than a quintessential "rambling, prolix" pleading, condemned by this court. In fact, we have specifically instructed district courts to prohibit, as fatally defective, shotgun pleadings similar to the one filed in this action. See, e.g., Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol, 516 F.3d 955, 979 (11th Cir. 2008); Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1130 n. 108 (11th Cir. 2001).
We have carefully reviewed the record and the tortured procedural history of this case. We commend the district judge for his diligent efforts in trying to obtain compliance with the requirements for drafting a proper pleading. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Neither the district court or this court has been able to discern from the plaintiff's filings the substance of any complaints and neither court has passed upon any issues that might have been contained in adequate and proper pleading.
AFFIRMED.