OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on review of Defendants, Micah Thomas, Don Gutshall, and the City of Clewiston's Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #21) filed on December 17, 2013. Plaintiff did not file a response.1

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. Accordingly, the Court will construe Plaintiff's pleadings liberally. Hope v. Bureau of Prisons, 476 F. App'x 702, 704-05 (11th Cir. 2012). Nevertheless, pro se litigants are "still required to conform to procedural rules, and the court is not required to rewrite a deficient pleading." Washington v. Dept. of Children and Families, 256 F. App'x 326, 327 (11th Cir. 2007). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a Complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Additionally, a party "must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances." Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The Complaint in this cases lists as Defendants Clewiston police officer Micah Thomas, Clewiston Chief of Police Don Gutshall, and the City of Clewiston. (Doc. #1, p. 2.) Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendants violated his constitutional rights via a wrongful arrest, unlawful imprisonment, and impermissible use of force. (Id. at pp. 3-5.) However, the Complaint is not set out in numbered paragraphs, does not plead individual claims as separate counts, does not identify any causes of action, and does not explain which claims are brought against which Defendants. (Id.) Instead, Plaintiff presents his allegations regarding the circumstances of his arrest in narrative form and then proceeds immediately to his requested relief. (Id.)

The failure to articulate claims with sufficient clarity to enable defendants to properly frame a response constitutes a "shotgun pleading." Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 980 (11th Cir. 2008). "This type of pleading completely disregards Rule 10(b)'s requirement that discrete claims should be plead in separate counts . . . ." Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Anderson v. Dist. Bd. Of Tr., 77 F.3d 364, 366-67 (11th Cir. 1996)). Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit has established that when faced with a shotgun pleading, a district court should require the parties to file an amended pleading rather than allow such a case to proceed to trial. Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1130 (11th Cir. 2001); Paylor v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117, 1126-28 (11th Cir. 2014). Therefore, the Complaint will be dismissed on this basis and the motion to dismiss denied as moot.

If Plaintiff chooses to amend his Complaint, Plaintiff must set out his claims in numbered paragraphs and list each separate claim as an individual count. Plaintiff should clearly describe how each named defendant is involved in each alleged claim and specify which defendants are being sued for each particular claim. Plaintiff must also provide support in the statement of facts for the alleged violations. More than conclusory and vague allegations are required to state a cause of action. Further, the Court encourages Plaintiff to review the "Proceeding Without a Lawyer" section of this Court's website at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. The website includes tips, frequently asked questions, sample forms, and a "Guide for Proceeding Without a Lawyer." There is also a link that will direct Plaintiff to an interview process that will help with producing an amended complaint.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice to filing an Amended Complaint within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Order.

2. Defendants Micah Thomas, Don Gutshall, and the City of Clewiston's Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #21) is DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED.