Betts v. Conecuh County Board of Education
ORDER ADOPTING 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as the opinion of this Court; GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Defendants' 7 MOTION to Dismiss or Alternatively for More Definite Statement; DISMISSING claims as set forth in Order, GRANTING motion for more definite statement, and directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint as set forth in order not later than 1/12/2015. Signed by Judge Callie V. S. Granade on 12/30/2014. (mab)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CONECUH COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, RONNIE BROGDEN,
and MARY ANN DANFORD,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0356-CG-N
After due and proper consideration of all issues raised, and there having been
no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated December 10, 2014, is ADOPTED as the
opinion of this Court.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively for More
Definite Statement (Doc. 7) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is
ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion is GRANTED with respect to
Plaintiff’s Title VII claims against Superintendent Ronnie Brogden and Mary Ann
Danford, both individually and as agents of the Conecuh County Board of
Education; her claims for retaliation brought solely under § 1983; her claims for
punitive damages under both Title VII and § 1983 against the Conecuh County
Board of Education, and for punitive damages under §§ 1981 and 1983 against
Superintendent Ronnie Brogden and Mary Ann Danford in their official capacities;
and her § 1983 claims (including her merged § 1981 claims) against Superintendent
Ronnie Brogden and Mary Ann Danford in their official capacities. Therefore, said
claims are DISMISSED. The Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in all
other respects is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 12(e) motion for more definite
statement is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint not
later than January 12, 2015. Plaintiff’s shall adhere to the following standards
in repleading her complaint:
1. Betts shall omit mention of any claim that is dismissed by this Order.
2. She shall refrain from incorporating multiple causes of action into one
count, as well as from the wholesale adoption by reference of all antecedent
allegations into each subsequent cause of action. Instead, she must list each
discrete cause of action (e.g., “disparate impact under Title VII,” “hostile work
environment under Title VII,” “retaliation under § 1981”) in a separate count and
identify with specificity the factual allegations used to support each discrete claim
against each individual Defendant.1
3. In being ordered to replead under Rule 12(e), Betts is not being granted
leave to amend her complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Thus,
Though Betts invokes the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, in the opening
of her Complaint, she does not assert a separate cause of action under it, and from the allegations
in her Complaint it appears that she seeks a “declaratory judgment” only as one of several forms
of relief on her Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983 actions.
Plaintiff shall set forth a discrete count asserting a cause of action under the Declaratory
Judgment Act if she indeed wishes to do so. Otherwise, she shall omit reference to the
Declaratory Judgment Act on repleader.
she shall not use this as an opportunity to add new claims and/or parties which are
not apparent from the allegations in her initial Complaint (Doc. 1). Cf. Washington
v. Util. Trailer Mfg. Co., No. 1:13-CV-610-WEF, 2014 WL 2831189, at *5 n.5 (M.D.
Ala. June 23, 2014) (“Plaintiffs may not use this order to re-plead Count I as an
opportunity to add new claims.”).
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Order by January 12, 2015, will result
in the remaining claims pending in the plaintiff’s complaint being stricken and this
action being dismissed for failure to prosecute.
DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of December, 2014.
/s/ Callie V. S. Granade
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?