Battle v. Tampa General Hospital / Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. et al
| David D. Battle, Jr. |
| Tampa General Hospital / Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., Hernando County Emergency Physicians, Professional Account Services, Inc., Merchants Credit Guide Company, Lotane & Associates, P.A., Troy R. Lotane, Judge Kurt E. Hitzemann, Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Trans Union LLC |
| 8:2026cv02454 |
| August 25, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Sean P Flynn |
| Kathryn Kimball Mizelle |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 25, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ENDORSED ORDER: The plaintiff's motion to appear virtually at any hearing (Doc. #4) and pro se plaintiff's motion for e-filing access (Doc. #3) are DENIED. The plaintiff has not shown a sufficient basis to grant an exception to the general rule that pro se litigants must file paper documents with the Court. Hooker v. Wilkie, No. 8:20-CV-1248-T-02CPT, 2020 WL 6947482, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 4, 2020). The Court notes that any member of the public can access electronic records of the federal courts by registering online with PACER, and pro se litigants may file paper documents by mail. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 8/25/2026. (GTD)
|
|
Filing 7
ENDORSED ORDER: Upon review, the Court finds that the complaint (Doc. #1) constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1324 (11th Cir. 2015). Much of the complaint "is guilty of the venial sin of being replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action." Id. at 1321-22. The vague and conclusory allegations in the complaint do not provide defendants sufficient notice as to the nature of the claims and the facts upon which they are based. See Jackson v. Bank of America, N.A., 898 F.3d 1348,1358 (11th Cir. 2018) ("The pleading is vague and ambiguous such that [the defendants have] to guess as to... the facts upon which [the plaintiff relies] in support.") (quotation omitted). Also, each count in the complaint incorporates the factual background allegations, which often allege that "Respondents" took certain actions, thus failing to properly "specify[] which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions." Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323. Further, it is unclear how the FCRA claims against the credit reporting agencies relate to the dispute underlying the rest of the claims and whether such claims belong in this action. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED, and the plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint no later than September 8, 2026. The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #2) is moot and thus DENIED without prejudice. If the plaintiff amends his complaint, he must pay the $405 filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis at the time that he files the amended complaint. If the plaintiff fails to amend the complaint, submits another shotgun pleading, or does not pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis at the time he files, this action will be dismissed without further notice.If electing to refile, the Court notes that multiple claims also appear to run afoul of various doctrines barring subject matter jurisdiction. For example, the complaint seeks to sue an individual who is entitled to judicial immunity for the allegedly harmful acts. Although the plaintiff claims that Rooker-Feldman does not bar any of his claims, he requests, in part, declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of state court orders. The complaint also seeks to improperly sue under a federal criminal statute. At least one other claim is self-defeating--the malicious prosecution claim alleges that the proceeding terminated in plaintiff's favor but admits that summary judgment was entered against plaintiff. Should the plaintiff amend, he would be prudent to also address these concerns. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 8/25/2026. (GTD)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE to David D. Battle, Jr. - A pro se litigant may consent to receive Notices of Electronic Filings by completing the consent form linked #here or by visiting the court's website at https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/litigants-without-lawyers. (KCH) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Appear Virtually by David D. Battle, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope)(KCH) |
| Filing 6 PROPOSED summons to be issued by David D. Battle, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope)(KCH) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Electronic Filing Access and Registration for CM/ECF by David D. Battle, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope)(KCH) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by David D. Battle, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis / Affidavit of Indigency and #2 Mailing Envelope)(KCH) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn. |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Equifax Information Services, LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Hernando County Emergency Physicians, Kurt E. Hitzemann, Troy R. Lotane, Lotane & Associates, P.A., Merchants Credit Guide Company, Professional Account Services, Inc., Tampa General Hospital / Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., Trans Union LLC with Jury Demand filed by David D. Battle, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Mailing Envelope)(KCH) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
