Whether the Eleventh Circuit's 'shotgun pleading' rule used to strike pleadings with prejudice directly conflicts with the Twombly and Iqbal standard for Rule 12 and Rule 8 substantive merit review of a pleading

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court created the governing standard for substantive Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (“Rule 12”) and 8 (“Rule 8”) review of federal civil pleadings in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Accordingly, no other federal court may create its own separate or competing standard to determine whether federal civil pleadings: Gi) state a claim upon which relief can be granted to survive a Rule 12 motion to dismiss; (ii) comply with Rule 8(a)(2)’s short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief requirement; and/or (iii) provide defendants fair notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which they rest. Since 1985, the Eleventh Circuit has been in direct conflict with this Court’s governing Twombly and Iqbal standard. Specifically, Eleventh Circuit courts routinely apply the “shotgun pleading” rule to determine whether pleadings comply with Rule 8(a)(2) and/or state a claim upon which relief may be granted without applying the Twombly and Iqbal standard. The question presented is therefore whether the Eleventh Circuit’s “shotgun pleading” rule used to strike pleadings with prejudice directly conflicts with the Twombly and Iqbal standard for Rule 12 and Rule 8 substantive merit review of a pleading.