Gardner v. County of Baldwin et al

Filing 49

Order for Plaintiff to file, by 12/31/2013, and amended complaint that does not exceed 25 pages in total, as further set out. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 12/3/2013. Copy of Order and 1983 Complaint Form mailed as directed. (sdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DONALD EUGENE GARDNER, III,

:

Plaintiff,

:

vs.

:

COUNTY OF BALDWIN, et al.,

:

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO:12-00639-CG-B

:
ORDER

Plaintiff
inmate

Donald

proceeding

pro

Eugene
se

Gardner,
and

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

in

III,

forma

an

Alabama

pauperis,

prison

filed

a

Because Gardner is proceeding

in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen his complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) 1 . (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff’s

complaint,

which

contains

62

pages

In reviewing
of

text

and

another 24 pages of attachments, the Court finds that many of
the paragraphs are long and rambling such that it is difficult
for the Court to discern whether the claims are plausible or
fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

1

In

Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a claim may be dismissed as
“frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 183132, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A claim is frivolous as a matter of
law where the defendants are immune from suit, or the claim
seeks to enforce a right that clearly does not exist. Id.
Moreover, a complaint may be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th
Cir. 1997).

other words, Gardner’s complaint does not contain a “short and
plain statement” of his claims as required by Rule 8(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

See Harrison v. Board of

Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 519 F. App’x 641, 643 (11th Cir.
2013) (unpublished) (finding that an 82-page complaint was not
“‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief’”); 3 Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d
1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001)(finding that a 58-page complaint
naming 14 defendants was not a “short and plain statement of the
claim”); Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 F.2d 1465, 1492, 1522 (11th
Cir.) (admonishing the district court for not intervening at the
earliest point and requiring the plaintiff to replead his 702

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states
a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless
the court already has jurisdiction and the
claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which
may include relief in the alternative or
different types of relief.

3

“Unpublished opinions are not considered binding
precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority.”
CIR. R. 36-2 (2005).
2

11TH

page amended complaint which caused the expenditure of much time
and effort by the defendant and the court), cert. denied, 510
U.S. 918 (1993), abrogated on other grounds Douglas Asphalt Co.
v. QORE, Inc., 657 F.3d 1146, 1151 (11th Cir. 2011); Muhammad
v.Bethel-Muhammad, CA 11-0690-WS-B, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8605,
at *1-2, 2012 WL 206173, at *1-2 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 24, 2012)
(finding that the 100-page complaint violated Rule 8(a) as did
the plaintiffs’ prior lawsuit’s complaint which consisted of 36
pages, but with incorporations was over 70 pages); Gollomp v.
Spitzer,

568

F.3d

355,

372

(2d

Cir.

2009)

(finding

no

justification for filing a 61-page complaint); Jones v. National
Commc’ns & Surveillance Networks, 266 F. App’x 31, 33 (2d Cir.
2008) (finding that the “single-spaced 58-page complaint with 87
additional

pages

of

attachments”

was

not

a

short

and

plain

statement); Abell v. Sothen, 214 F. App’x 743, 747 (10th Cir.
2007) (finding a 37-page complaint was not a short and plain
statement); Miles v. Trempealeau Cnty., 204 F. App’x 570, 573
(7th Cir. 2006) (finding that a 28-page complaint failed to meet
Rule 8’s requirements); see also Streeter v. City of Pensacola,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18215, 2007 WL 809786, at *2 (N.D. Fla.
Mar. 15, 2007) (limiting the court-ordered amended complaint to
25 pages due to the second court-ordered amended complaint being
73

pages

which

was

longer

than
3

the

51-page

first

amended

complaint); Coleman v. Butler, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20205, at
*1, 2005 WL 1876166, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2005) (limiting
the amended complaint to 12 pages because the original 30-page
complaint was repetitive and not a short and plain statement);
Barr

v.

Gee,

2010

U.S.

Dist.

LEXIS

76026,

at

*1,

2010

WL

3002875, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2010) (limiting the amended
complaint

to

30

pages

after

reviewing

the

137-page

original

complaint).
“Rule

8(a)(2)

of

the

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure

generally requires only a plausible ‘short and plain’ statement
of

the

plaintiff's

argument.”

claim,

not

an

exposition

of

his

legal

Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1296 (2011).

A

plaintiff need not “pin his claim for relief to a precise legal
theory.” Id.

Rather, a plaintiff is required to state with

sufficient facts a “claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.
Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference

that

the

defendant

is

liable

for

the

misconduct

alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009).

The “[f]actual allegations must be

enough

to

to

raise

a

right

relief
4

above

the

speculative

level[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
contribute

to

“unadorned,
“labels

the

finding

of

a

Allegations that do not
plausible

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed

and

conclusions,”

“a

formulaic

claim
me

are

the

accusation,”

recitation

of

the

elements of a cause of action,” and “‘naked assertion[s] devoid
of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
In order

to aid the Court in undertaking the screening

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), Gardner is hereby ORDERED
to file, on or before December 31, 2013, an amended complaint
that satisfies the pleading requirements discussed above.

The

amended complaint shall contain a “short and plaint” statement
of

Gardner’s

claim,

complaint form.

and

shall

be

on

this

Court’s

§

1983

Gardner is ORDERED to complete the form in its

entirety, and if there are more defendants than spaces, he is
required

to

follow

the

form’s

format

on

separate

sheets

of

paper. See Local Rule 83.9(d) (requiring all pro se litigants to
use

the

forms

complaint

that

provided
exceeds

by
25

the

Court).

pages

in

However,

total

will

an

amended

presumptively

violate this Order.
In drafting his amended complaint, Gardner is advised that
he

should

generally

bring

only

one

claim

in

the

amended

complaint and, if there is a claim that is closely related to
the primary claim, it may be included.
5

For example, Gardner’s

allegations regarding his mail are not related to his claim
regarding his mental health treatment, or lack thereof. (Doc. 1
at 46-49).

Moreover, Gardner has not identified the individuals

connected to his allegations regarding his mail, nor is there
any

indication

that

these

unnamed

individuals

had

any

involvement with respect to Gardner’s other claims.
In determining whether a claim is related, the Court looks
to

whether

occurrence,
whether

the
or

there

claim
series

are

arises
of

from

“the

transactions

“questions

of

law

or

same

or

transaction,

occurrences”

fact

common

to

and
all

defendants” that will arise in the action. Headwaters, LLC v.
Dawes Lake, LLC, CA 13-0291-CG-N, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120788,
2013 WL 4519198, at *3 (S.D. Ala. 2013) (applying Rule 20(a));
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2).4
To determine whether claims arise from the
same “series of transactions or occurrences”
under Rule 20(a)(2), courts in the Eleventh
Circuit apply the “logical relationship”
4

Rule 20(a)(2) provides:
(2) Defendants. Persons . . . may be
joined in one action as defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against
them jointly, severally, or in the
alternative with respect to or arising out
of the same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions or occurrences; and
(B) any question of law or fact common to
all defendants will arise in the action.
6

test. See Smith v. Trans–Siberian Orchestra,
728 F. Supp. 2d 1315, 1319 (M.D. Fla. 2010)
(citing Republic Health Corp. v. Lifemark
Hosps. of Fla., 755 F.2d 1453, 1455 (11th
Cir. 1985)). “Under this test, a logical
relationship exists if the claims rest on
the same set of facts or the facts, on which
one claim rests, activate additional legal
rights supporting the other claim.” Id.
(citing Republic Health, 755 F.2d at 1455).
In
other
words,
“there
is
a
logical
relationship when ‘the same operative facts
serve as the basis of both claims.’ “
Republic Health, 755 F.2d at 1455 (quoting
Plant v. Blazer Fin. Servs., Inc., 598 F.2d
1357, 1361 (5th Cir. 1979)). “[O]nly claims
that do not arise from common operative
facts are not logically related.” Montgomery
Ward Dev. Corp. v. Juster, 932 F.2d 1378,
1381 n. 1 (11th Cir. 1991). The logical
relationship standard is a “loose” one that
“permits a broad realistic interpretation in
the interest of avoiding a multiplicity of
suits.” Plant, 598 F.2d at 1361 (internal
quotations
omitted).
Joinder
rules,
including
Rule
20(a)(2),
are
construed
generously
towards
“entertaining
the
broadest possible scope of action consistent
with fairness of the parties.” United Mine
Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724, 86 S.
Ct. 1130, 16 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1966).
Id. (quoting Bollea v. Clem, 937 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1350-51 (M.D.
Fla. 2013)); see Skillern v. Georgia Dept. of Corrs. Comm’r, 379
F.

App’x

court’s

859,

dismissal

plaintiff’s
ranging

860

of

serving

etc.,

Cir.

the

contention,

from

isolation,

(11th

(affirming

plaintiff’s

that

him

which

2010)

several

inedible

occurred
7

on

food

the

action

because

unrelated
to

district

incidents,

leaving

different

the

dates,

him

in

showed

defendants’ overall indifference to his medical conditions, did
not comply with the court’s order directing him to show that his
claims arose out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series
of

transactions

or

occurrences);

Hurst

v.

Powell,

2013

U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 110215, 2013 WL 4011051, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 6,
2013) (dismissing claims for slander and discrimination as they
did not arise out the same transaction of occurrence as the
claims in plaintiff’s complaint); Union v. Montenegro, 2012 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 87666, 2012 WL 2401784, at *5 (M.D. Fla. June 25,
2012)(finding that the plaintiff’s claims were unrelated as the
incidents allegedly occurred at two different prisons, with one
claim being based on plaintiff’s close management status at one
institution
allegedly

and

the

false

other

claim

disciplinary

being
he

concerned

received

with

at

the

another

institution).
Additionally, Gardner is advised that in drafting the short
and plain statement in his amended complaint, he shall include:
a statement of the date and the place that each alleged event
occurred, the participants in each event, and a description of
each event on which he relies to state each claim against each
defendant.

Gardner shall avoid repeating himself, which he did

extensively

in

the

original

complaint.

He

shall

also

avoid

attempting to provide every detail of the story surrounding his
8

claim. See Muhammad, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8605 at *1 (“It is
true

that

a

complaint

must

include

sufficient

[f]actual

allegations ... to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level. . . . But a complaint does not need detailed factual
allegations to survive an initial attack on its sufficiency,
only enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible
on

its

face.”)

(quotation

marks

and

citations

omitted).

Additionally, Gardner shall avoid including legal argument or
citation to cases or other authority in his amended complaint.
In a § 1983 action such as this one, a plaintiff must
causally

connect

a

defendant’s

actions,

omissions,

customs,

policies, or breaches of statutory duty to a deprivation of the
plaintiff’s constitutional or federal rights in order to state a
claim. See Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 401 (11th Cir.
1986);

Williams

v.

Bennett,

689

F.2d

1370,

1380

(11th

Cir.

1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 932 (1983); see also Douglas v.
Yates, 535 F.3d 1316, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[A] complaint will
be held defective . . . if [it] fails to connect the defendant
with the alleged wrong.”).
Finally, Gardner is cautioned that the failure to comply
with this order within the prescribed time by filing an amended
complaint that complies with Rule 8 or by simply not filing an
amended complaint will result in the dismissal without prejudice
9

of this action. See Pelletier, 921 F.2d at 1522 n.103 (advising
the court to dismiss the action if the plaintiff did not file a
complying complaint).
The

Clerk

is

DIRECTED

to

send

Gardner

a

form

for

a

complaint under § 1983.
DONE this the 3rd day of December, 2013.
/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10