Matthews v. City of Mobile Police Department
ORDER granting 18 Motion to Amend Complaint; granting 21 Motion for More Definite Statement. Plaintiff shall file by 11/8/12 a 3rd Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 10/12/2012. (srr)
IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CITY OF MOBILE,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-353-KD-N
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action claiming discrimination in the
termination of her employment pursuant to Title VII. This matter is before the court on
Plaintiff’s Motion (doc. 18) which the court deems to be a Motion to File Amended
Complaint, the plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint [attached to the motion and also
filed separately at doc. 19], and defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement (doc.
21). These motions have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636
and Local Rule 72.2(c)(1).
Plaintiff filed her complaint on May 24, 2012, against the City of Mobile Police
Department. Doc. 1. The court ordered plaintiff to amend her complaint, noting that the
Police Department was not a proper party. Doc. 7. The First Amended Complaint (doc.
9) was filed on July 17, 2012.
Plaintiff’s current Motion seeks leave to file a further amendment, adding a claim
for retaliation based on a second EEOC charge. Plaintiff states that she has received a
right-to-sue letter from the EEOC on this claim.
Defendant’s Motion seeks an order requiring plaintiff to amend her complaint to
more clearly state her allegations and claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e); Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 683 (2009).
Defendant addresses the plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint, citing several
Because Title VII contains strict time limits on filing suit, the court finds it proper
to allow the filing of plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, despite the deficiencies in
the proposed Amended Complaint, and to require the filing of a further amendment
which will comply with the minimum requirements for clarity. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to File Amended Complaint is GRANTED, and
defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED
that, no later than November 8, 2012, plaintiff shall file a Third Amended Complaint
setting out her factual allegations and legal claims in the detail required to allow
defendants to Answer and defend against her claims, as required under the authority cited
DONE this the 12th day of October, 2012.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?