United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division
RANDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE
an independent and de novo review of the entire
record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation, (doc. 8), to which
Plaintiff filed Objections, (doc. 10). Plaintiff argues that
he "is not required to provide specific facts to support
[imminent danger of serious physical injury] in his amended
complaint." (Id. at p. 1.) However, Plaintiffs
contention is meritless. See Brown v. Johnson, 387
F.3d 1344, 1350 (11th Cir. 2004) (finding persuasive the
Eighth Circuit's holding that a "general assertion
is insufficient to invoke the exception to § 1915(g)
absent specific fad allegations of ongoing serious
physical injury, or of a pattern of misconduct evidencing the
likelihood of imminent serious physical injury.")
(quoting Martin v. Shellon, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th
alternative, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension
requesting that this Court stay his case until March 20,
2019, so that he may "try to come up with a way to pay
the filing fee." (Doc. 9, p. 1.) Plaintiff avers that a
dismissal at this stage would function as a "with
prejudice" dismissal because his claims would be barred
by the statute of limitations. (Doc. 9, p. 1; Doc. 10, p. 2.)
While this may be true, dismissal even with prejudice is
warranted in Plaintiffs case. "[Dismissals with
prejudice generally are not appropriate unless the district
court finds both that there is a clear record of delay or
willful misconduct and that lesser sanctions are
inadequate." Hines v. Thomas, 604 Fed.Appx.
796, 800 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Zocaras v. Castro,
465 F.3d 479, 483 (11th Cir. 2006)).
has filed seven additional lawsuits bringing similar, if not
identical, claims to the current case. Three of these
cases remain pending; the rest were dismissed because Plaintiff
failed to amend his complaint to state a claim. In each of
these dismissed cases, the Court notified Plaintiff that his
complaint was a "shotgun pleading" and due to be
dismissed. See Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d
1282, 1284-85 (11th Cir. 2001) (refusing to address and
decide issues because pleading was a "shotgun
pleading" that "is in no sense the 'short and
plain statement of the claim' required by [Federal] Rule
[of Civil Procedure] 8"). However, the Court repeatedly
provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to amend and provided
specific instructions as to how Plaintiff could amend to
state a viable claim. In response, Plaintiff ignored the
Court's directives and continuously filed amended
complaints that failed to follow the Court's instructions
and were still shotgun pleadings. As soon as the Court
entered a final judgment in a case for failure to state a
claim or to follow Court orders, Plaintiff would then proceed
to re-file a similar, if not identical, complaint.
pattern of behavior clearly shows that Plaintiff has
willfully ignored this Court's directives, and a lesser
sanction would not suffice. Any prejudice resulting from this
decision is as a result of Plaintiffs own delay in filing an
appropriate complaint in this case or any of his other seven
previous iterations of this case.
even if Plaintiff did not satisfy the standard for
prejudicial sanction, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, (doc. 6),
fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. As
addressed in Plaintiffs previous cases, Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint is a shotgun pleading. The Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals has routinely and explicitly condemned
"shotgun pleadings," Davis v. Coca-Cola
Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 979 n.54 (11th Cir.
2008), which it has described as pleadings that make it
"virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact
are intended to support which claim(s) for relief."
Strategic Income Fund, LLC v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg
Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 n.9 (11th Cir. 2002). A
district court is not required to "sift through the
facts presented and decide for itself which were material to
the particular cause of action asserted." Beckwith
v. Bellsouth Telecomms. Inc., 146 Fed.Appx. 368, 372
(11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Strategic Income Fund, 305
F.3d at 1295 n.9). Additionally, a plaintiff may not join
unrelated claims and various defendants unless the claims
"arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions or occurrences; and any question of
law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the
action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a). Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint asserts a litany of claims against twenty to thirty
Defendants and raises issues ranging from poor prison
sanitation, excessive force, lack of due process for his
placement in segregation, failure to protect, and
retaliation. It is a quintessential shotgun pleading, and
despite an opportunity to amend and specific instructions
regarding how to amend to cure the deficiencies, (doc. 5),
Plaintiff continued to file a deficient Amended Complaint.
Thus, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint may also be dismissed with
prejudice for failing to state a claim.
this reason, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs
Motion for Extension of Time to pay filing fee. (Doc. 9.)
Even if Plaintiff paid the full filing fee, his Amended
Complaint would still be dismissed for failing to state a
claim for which relief may be granted. See 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(c)(1) ("The court shall on its own motion . . .
dismiss any action . . . if the court is satisfied that the
action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted ....").
Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections and
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, as supplemented herein, as the opinion of
the Court. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs
Complaint and DENIES Plaintiff leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The Court
further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter
an appropriate judgment of dismissal and to
CLOSE this case.
 Compl. Clayton v. Williams,
No. 6:16-cv-151 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 7, 2016), ECF No. 1: Compl.
Clayton v. Williams, No. 6:16-cv-174 (S.D. Ga. Dec.
27, 2016), ECF No. 1; Compl., Clayton v. Davidson,
No. 6:17-cv-149 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 27, 2017), ECF No. 1; Compl.,
Clayton v. Williams, No. 6:17-cv-70 (S.D. Ga. Dec.
6, 2017), ECF No. 1; Compl., Clayton v. Evans, No.
6:17-cv-158 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 11, 2017), ECF No. 1; Compl.,
Clayton v. Allen, No. 6:18-cv-5 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 16,
2018), ECF No. 1; Compl., Clayton v. Lones, No.
6:18-cv-33 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 28, 2018), ECF No. 1.
 Davidson, No. 6:17-cv-149;
Evans, No. 6:17-cv-158; and Lones, No.
 In Allen, 6:18-cv-5, the
Court dismissed because Plaintiff qualified as a
"three-striker" under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g)-similar to the reasons provided in this case.
However, the Court did notify Plaintiff that his complaint in
the Allen case was "identical to many of his
other complaints already determined to be deficient by this
Court" for failing to satisfy the "short and plain
statement" requirement of Rule 8. R. & ...