Garcia v. IRS, Internal Revenue Service

Filing 63

ORDER; 14 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and the Motion for More Definite Statement [Doc. No. 10 of 12-cv-02482-WYD-KLM] are GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint on or before 11/21/2012. Failure to file a Second Amended Complaint by that date or satisfy the standards set forth in this Order for presenting claims may result in a recommendation for dismissal of this action. The Scheduling Conference set for 11/8/2012 is VACATED. The Court will re-set the Scheduling Conference, if necessary, after Plaintiff files a Second Amended Complaint in compliance with this Order, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/1/2012.(klmcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01824-WYD-KLM
LILIA E. GARCIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
IRS, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint [Docket No. 141; Filed August 30, 2012] (the “Motion to Strike”),
Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement [#10 of 12-cv-02482-WYD-KLM; Filed
October 4, 2012] and Defendant’s Motion to Convert Scheduling/Planning Conference
into Status Conference [#58; Filed October 29, 2012] (“Motion to Convert”). Plaintiff has
filed an Answer to Motion of [sic] Strike Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [#17; Filed
September 13, 2012] (“Response to Motion to Strike”). In response to the Motion for a
More Definite Statement, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Denie [sic] [#19 of 12-cv-02482WYD-KLM; Filed October 9, 2012] (“Response to Motion for a More Definite Statement”).
Plaintiff has not, as of the date of this Order, filed a response to the Motion to Convert.
Defendant has not filed a reply in support of either the Motion to Strike or the Motion for a
More Definite Statement.

1

Unless otherwise indicated, the referenced docket number corresponds to Case No.
12-cv-01824-WYD-KLM, the controlling case number following the District Judge’s consolidation
order. See Order [#32] (granting motion to consolidate).

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this case (12-cv-01824-WYD-KLM) by filing a pro se Complaint in

County Court, Adams County, Colorado. [#5]. After the case was removed to federal court
[#1], this Court granted Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement [#7] and directed
Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. [#12]. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on
August 24, 2012. [#13]. Soon thereafter, on August 30, 2012, Defendant filed the instant
Motion to Strike. [#14].
On September 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in County Court, Denver County,
Colorado, against the same Defendant raising similar, if not identical, claims. [#3 of 12-cv02482-WYD-KLM].

Defendant removed the

case to federal court and moved for

consolidation with the earlier filed case. [#1and #5 of 12-cv-02482-WYD-KLM]. Defendant
also filed the instant Motion for a More Definite Statement. [#10 of 12-cv-02482-WYDKLM]

The District Court granted the Motion to Consolidate in an Order issued on in

October 11, 2012 and directed all pleadings and other filings to be filed in Case No. 12cv–01824-WYD-KLM. [#23 of 12-cv-02482-WYD-KLM and #32 of 12-cv-01824-WYDKLM].
II.

ANALYSIS
A.

Motion to Strike

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [#13] should be stricken
because it fails to set forth any facts to support its alleged violations of federal statutes.
[#14] at 2. Defendant contends that although Plaintiff identifies federal statutes that she
claims have been violated, including the Family Medical Leave Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Equal Pay Act, among others, she presents no facts to support the
alleged violations. Id. Defendant argues that the one-page Amended Complaint fails to
2

allege: 1) any acts of Defendant that violated the statutes, any employees of Defendant
who violated the statutes, 3) the date or time period when the alleged violations occurred,
and 4) the harm caused to Plaintiff by Defendant’s conduct. Id. at 3.
Attached to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint are 92 pages of exhibits. [#13].
Defendant argues that it is “not required to cull through over 90 pages of documents to
attempt to determine the factual and legal basis for Plaintiff’s alleged claims.” [#14] at 2.
Defendant contends that absent any factual allegations, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
should be stricken because it fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and with this Court’s
prior Minute Order [#12] granting Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement. Id. at
4.
Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Strike [#17] is indecipherable. She identifies
numerous rules, regulations and statutes but offers either no facts or extremely vague facts
in an attempt to support her claims. [#17] at 2-5. The Response serves only to confuse
matters and offers no clarification of her claims or any basis to deny the Motion to Strike.
See id.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) provides that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must
contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to
relief.”

Similarly, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, “[t]he

complaint must plead sufficient facts, taken as true, to provide ‘plausible grounds’ that
discovery will reveal evidence to support plaintiff’s allegations.” Shero v. City of Grove,
Okla., 510 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)). “[P]lausibility refers to the scope of the allegations in a complaint: if they
are so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of it innocent, then the
plaintiff[ ] [has] not nudged [her] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.”
3

Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1191 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
“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 alleged
misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). However, “[a] pleading that
offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. Nor does the complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement.’” Id. (citation omitted). That said, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary;
the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests;” the 12(b)(6) standard does not “require that the complaint
include all facts necessary to carry the plaintiff’s burden.” Khalik, 671 F.3d at 1192.
Moreover, the Court must construe the filings of a pro se litigant liberally. See
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 594, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th
Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be the pro se litigant’s advocate, nor should the
Court “supply additional factual allegations to round out [the pro se litigant’s] complaint or
construct a legal theory on [his or her] behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170,
1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110). In addition, pro se litigants must
follow the same procedural rules that govern other litigants. Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276,
1277 (10th Cir. 1994).
Here, construing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint liberally, the Court finds that it fails
to satisfy even the basic standards of Rule 8(a) and the standards for stating a claim under
Rule 12(b)(6). The Amended Complaint lists several alleged violations of federal statutes
but presents no facts whatsoever to support the violations. It contains nothing about who
allegedly violated the statutes, the conduct that was allegedly unlawful, the harm allegedly
4

caused or the relief being sought. Moreover, as Defendant argues, it is neither Defendant’s
nor the Court’s responsibility to go through the numerous exhibits attached to the Amended
Complaint to decipher whether they provide sufficient facts to support the alleged statutory
violations. For these reasons, the Motion to Strike is GRANTED.
B.

Motion for a More Definite Statement

Defendant seeks a more definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) from
Plaintiff on the basis that the Complaint [#3 of 12-cv-02482-WYD-KLM] submitted by
Plaintiff fails to comply with Rule 8(a). [#10 of 12-cv-02482-WYD-KLM] at 2. Defendant
argues that it is unable to file an answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint in its
present form. Id.
Plaintiff appears to oppose the motion in her one-page Response to Motion for a
More Definite Statement, though her argument is indecipherable. [#19 of 12-cv-02482WYD-KLM]. She attaches twenty pages to her Response but fails to explain how they
support her opposition to the motion. See id.
A motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) is generally disfavored by the Court.
Daley v. Reg'l Transp. Dist., 142 F.R.D. 481, 485 n.3 (D. Colo. 1992). As such, it is rarely
granted unless the complaint is “so excessively vague and ambiguous as to be
unintelligible” or defendant would be prejudiced in its attempt to answer it. Greater N.Y.
Auto. Dealers Ass'n v. Env't Sys. Testings, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 71, 76 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (citation
omitted).
Here, however, the Court has examined Plaintiff’s one-page Complaint, which is
handwritten on a pre-printed form from a Colorado state court, and agrees with Defendant
that the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) and that Defendant would be prejudiced
in its attempt to answer it. Plaintiff seeks $10,000.00 from Defendant for alleged violations
5

of “Labor Law, equal pay act, [and] FMLA” among other laws. [#3 of 12-cv-02482-WYDKLM]. She also alleges discrimination and harassment. Id. Although she identifies several
individuals by name, she fails to allege specific conduct by any of these individuals or
allege how their conduct caused her harm. See id. Without sufficient factual support,
Defendant is unable to meaningfully answer or defend against the allegations. Accordingly,
Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement is GRANTED.
Having granted Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Amended Complaint in 12-cv01824-WYD-KLM and Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite Statement in 12-cv-02482WYD-KLM, the Court will grant Plaintiff one final opportunity to submit a Second Amended
Complaint, to be filed in 12-cv-01824-WYD-KLM only, that complies with Rule 8(a) and
satisfies the requirements to state a claim for relief. The Second Amended Complaint shall
set forth allegations of Defendant's conduct and the specific legal right this conduct
violates. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir.
2007). It must provide "the defendant sufficient notice to begin preparing its defense and
the court sufficient clarity to adjudicate the merits." Id. "[T]o state a claim in federal court,
[Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint] must explain what each defendant did to . . . her;
when the defendant did it; how the defendant's actions harmed . . . her; and, what specific
legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated." Nasious, 492 F.3d at 1163. In
addition, the Amended Complaint must either be typewritten or written in legible
handwriting. In the event that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint fails to satisfy these
standards, it may be subject to dismissal. Because the two cases filed by Plaintiff have
been consolidated, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint should include any claims she
intended to raise in each of the two cases.

6

C.

Motion to Convert

Lastly, Defendant requests that the Scheduling Conference set for November 8,
2012 be converted to a Status Conference to clarify the current status of the consolidated
cases. [#58] at 3. In light of the Court’s rulings on the instant motions, the Court sees no
need for a Status Conference at this time. The Court will, however, vacate the Scheduling
Conference and re-set it, if necessary, after Plaintiff files a Second Amended Complaint in
compliance with this Order.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Strike [#14] and the Motion for a More

Definite Statement [#10 of 12-cv-02482-WYD-KLM] are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint on or before November 21, 2012. Failure to file a Second Amended Complaint
by that date or satisfy the standards set forth in this Order for presenting claims may result
in a recommendation for dismissal of this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for November 8,
2012 is VACATED. The Court will re-set the Scheduling Conference, if necessary, after
Plaintiff files a Second Amended Complaint in compliance with this Order.
Dated: November 1, 2012

7