Perdue v. Alabama Department of Public Safety et al (MAG+)

Filing 29

ORDER directing that: (1) DPS's 28 objection is OVERRULED; (2) ADOPTING 27 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Mag Judge; (3) defendants' 25 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to plf's claims against the individual defendants Marc W. McHenry, Hugh B. McCall, Kevin Wright, Shaundra Morris, Steve Dixon, Bobby Head, and Herman Wright; (4) defendants' 25 motion to dismiss is DENIED as to plf's claims against defendant DPS; (5) defendants' 25 motion for a more definite statement is DENIED; and (6) this case is referred back to the Mag Judge for further proceedings on plf's claims. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/4/12. (Attachment(s): # 1 civil appeals checklist) (djy, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
ROSEMARY PERDUE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, MARC W.
McHENRY, HUGH B. McCALL,
KEVIN WRIGHT, SHAUNDRA
MORRIS, STEVE DIXON, BOBBY
HEAD, and HERMAN WRIGHT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-1005-WKW

ORDER
On May 10, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation
(Doc. # 27) regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for
a More Definite Statement (Doc. # 25). Defendant Alabama Department of Public
Safety (“DPS”) filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. #
28.) The court reviews de novo the portion of the Recommendation to which the
objection applies. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons that follow, the objection
is due to be overruled and the Recommendation adopted.
DPS does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding
disposition of its motion to dismiss. DPS only objects to the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation to deny Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement. DPS
argues that Plaintiff has not followed the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in filing her
Amended Complaint, and that this “create[s] an undue burden on DPS in answering
the Amended Complaint . . . .”
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is not a “shot gun pleading,” where DPS cannot
frame a responsive pleading due to the complaint’s “failure to identify claims with
sufficient clarity.” Beckwith v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 146 F. App’x 368, 371
(11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citing Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1129–30 (11th
Cir. 2001)). Plaintiff organizes her complaint in an outline format (using headings
and tabs) – first organizing by Defendant, and then listing the claims against each
defendant. Beneath each claim, Plaintiff lists the factual allegations intended to
support that claim in chronological order. While the complaint does not use numbered
paragraphs, the complaint is organized and detailed so as to provide DPS with “fair
notice of what the claim[s are] and the grounds upon which [they] rest.” Davis v.
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 974 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1.

DPS’s objection (Doc. # 28) is OVERRULED;

2.

the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 27) is ADOPTED;
2

3.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 25) is GRANTED as to
Plaintiff’s claims against the individual Defendants Marc W. McHenry,
Hugh B. McCall, Kevin Wright, Shaundra Morris, Steve Dixon, Bobby
Head, and Herman Wright;

4.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 25) is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendant DPS;

5.

Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. # 25) is
DENIED; and

6.

this case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further
proceedings on Plaintiff’s claims.

DONE this 4th day of June, 2012.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3