Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 26-11035 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-11035 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JOHN S. BARTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MABRY CARLTON RANCH, INC, LONGINO RANCH INC, BERRYMAN LONGINO, JR., JOHN LONGINO, THOMAS L. CURRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:26-cv-00383-KKM-TGW ____________________ Before BRANCH, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 26-11035 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 26-11035 PER CURIAM: John Barth appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his civil complaint without prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading. 1 On appeal, Barth generally argues the merits of his underlying lawsuit, alleges various conspiracies, collusion, and fraud, and takes issue with decisions from the D.C. Circuit in related actions and with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia’s decision to transfer the underlying action to the Middle District of Florida. 2 However, because Barth abandoned any challenge to the district court’s shotgun pleading determination by failing to raise the issue in his brief, we affirm. “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003) (quotations omitted). Nevertheless, “[w]hile we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); see also Campbell v. Air Jam., 1 The district court explained the deficiencies in the complaint and gave Barth the opportunity to file an amended complaint, but Barth did not file an amended complaint. 2 Barth initially filed the underlying complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The D.C. district court concluded that venue was not proper in that district because almost all the defendants resided in Florida and all of the allegations concerned activities in the Middle District of Florida. Accordingly, the D.C. district court transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida. USCA11 Case: 26-11035 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 3 of 4 26-11035 Opinion of the Court 3 Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that, although we liberally construe pro se pleadings, the Court will not “serve as de facto counsel for a party” or “rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action” (quotations omitted)). And “[w]hen 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. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted). By failing to challenge the district court’s determination that the complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading, Barth abandoned the issue, and we affirm.3 Id. AFFIRMED. 3 Even if not abandoned, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading and directing Barth to file an amended complaint. The 74-page complaint was a shotgun pleading because it contained conclusory and vague facts that were not obviously connected to a particular count or defendant and attempted to improperly incorporate 239 pages of appendices. Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015) (describing the four main types of shotgun pleadings). The complaint also improperly listed, within a single paragraph, numerous causes of action in violation of Rules 8 and 10. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Therefore, the district court properly dismissed the complaint without prejudice, identified the deficiencies and explained how to correct them, and provided Barth with an opportunity to amend. See Jackson v. Bank of Am., 898 F.3d 1348, 1357–58 (11th USCA11 Case: 26-11035 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 4 of 4 Cir. 2018) (explaining that, when faced with a shotgun pleading, “the district court should strike the pleading and instruct [the party] to replead the case” (alteration adopted) (quotations omitted)).