ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on its own initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1), filed December 28, 2016. Upon review, the Court finds that the Complaint is due to be dismissed as an impermissible shotgun pleading.

LEGAL STANDARDS

A shotgun complaint "contains several counts, each one incorporating by reference the allegations of its predecessors, leading to a situation where most of the counts . . . contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal conclusions." Strategic Income Fund, LLC v. Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Corp., 305 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002). The Court is therefore faced with the onerous task of sifting out irrelevancies in order to determine which facts are relevant to which causes of action. See id. Such shotgun pleadings are "altogether unacceptable," and it is the Court's obligation to force Plaintiff to replead. Cramer v. Florida, 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997).

DISCUSSION

Here, John Doe has named six Defendants—Rollins College ("Rollins"), Jessica Narducci ("JN"), Oriana Jiminez ("OJ"), Ken Miller ("KM"), Rebecca Decesare ("RD"), and Meghan Harte Weyant ("MW")—in its seven count Complaint; however, he did not specify which Defendant is named in which of the seven counts. (See Doc. 1.) Further, each count improperly "repeats and realleges each and every allegation hereinabove as if fully set forth herein." (See id. ¶¶ 109, 125, 138, 144, 148, 158, 165.) In the context of Plaintiff's 46-page Complaint, this shotgun style of pleading simply cannot be tolerated. Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to replead, and if he chooses to do so, he must clearly delineate which factual allegations are relevant to each claim and which defendants are named in each count.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: