Haygood v. Orange County Public Schools et al
Filing
38
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 19 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 18 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. On or before Wednesday, July 19, 2017, Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 7/3/2017. (ZRR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
WILSONIA W. HAYGOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 6:16-cv-2105-Orl-37GJK
ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOLS; FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION PRACTICES
COMMISSION; and FLORIDA
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Florida Education Association’s (“FEA”) motion to
dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 18). For the reason set forth below, the
motion is due to be granted.
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 8, 2016, pro se Plaintiff Wilsonia W. Haygood—a 69-year-old, black
female—initiated this action against Defendants for alleged violations of: (1) the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”); and (2) Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). (See Doc. 1 (“Initial Complaint”).) Upon motion (Doc. 15), the
Court dismissed the Initial Complaint, finding that: (1) it was a shotgun pleading; and
(2) Plaintiff had failed to properly allege an employment relationship under either the
ADEA or Title VII. (Doc. 17 (“Dismissal Order”).) In the Dismissal Order, the Court
-1-
permitted Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, cautioning her that such pleading must
remedy the deficiencies identified therein. (Id. at 6.)
Plaintiff amended her complaint on May 17, 2017. (Doc. 18 (“Amended
Complaint”).) In it, Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by Orange County Public
Schools (“OCPS”) as a teacher at Bridgewater Middle School (“School”) from July of 2003
until February of 2012. (Doc. 18, ¶¶ 1, 2.) The remaining allegations paint a picture of
rising tension between Plaintiff and School administrators. (See id. ¶¶ 1, 3, 4, 7, 9.)
Notably, Plaintiff claims that: (1) she filed a grievance with the School, which led to
Defendants promulgating false allegations concerning Plaintiff’s failure to report
“child-on-child abuse” in the classroom (“Abuse Allegations”) (id. ¶ 7); and (2) the Abuse
Allegations are merely a pretext, as she believes the School forced her into retirement due
to her age and race in violation of the ADEA and Title VII (id. ¶¶ 12–14).
At present, FEA moves for dismissal with prejudice. (Doc. 19 (“MTD”)). Plaintiff
responded (Doc. 36), and the matter is ripe for the Court’s consideration.
II.
A.
LEGAL STANDARDS
General Pleading Requirements
A pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “[D]etailed factual allegations” are
not required, but “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Rather, “a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
-2-
that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows [a] court to draw the
reasonable inference that [the] defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678;
see
also
Bailey
v.
Wheeler,
843
F.3d
473,
480
(11th
Cir.
2016).
Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may request dismissal of a pleading that
falls short of these pleadings requirements. Dismissal is warranted if, assuming the truth
of the factual allegations in the plaintiff’s favor, there is a dispositive legal issue which
precludes relief. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989).
Pro se pleadings are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nevertheless, a court may not
“serve as de facto counsel for a party” or “rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order
to sustain an action.” GJR Inv., Inc. v. Cty. of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369
(11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Iqbal, 556 U.S at 662 (2009); see also Beckwith
v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 146 F. App’x 368, 371 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (noting
that “pro se complaints also must comply with the procedural rules that govern
pleadings”).
B.
Shotgun Pleadings
Shotgun pleadings come in a variety of forms. See, e.g., Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty.
Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015) (describing four categories of shotgun
pleadings). But “[t]he unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun pleadings is that they
fail to one degree or another, and in one way or another, to give the defendants adequate
notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests.” Id.
-3-
at 1323.
Such pleadings impose on the Court the onerous task of sifting out irrelevancies
to determine which facts are relevant to which causes of action. See id. at 1323. Described
as “altogether unacceptable,” by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, when
a shotgun pleading is filed in this Court, repleader is required. Cramer v. Florida,
117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Paylor v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117,
1125–28 (11th Cir. 2014). If the Court does not require repleader, then “all is lost.” Johnson
Enters. of Jacksonville, Inc. v. FPL Grp., Inc., 162 F.3d 1290, 1333 (11th Cir. 1998).
III.
ANALYSIS
In its MTD, FEA asserts that the Amended Complaint is a shotgun pleading and
fails to allege that FEA was Plaintiff’s employer under Title VII or the ADEA. (Doc. 19,
pp. 1, 3.) The Court agrees.
The Amended Complaint, like its predecessor, asserts Title VII and ADEA claims
against Defendants collectively, without specifying which Defendant is responsible for
which acts or omissions, or which Defendant each claim is brought against. (See Doc. 1,
¶¶ 7–12; see also Weiland. 792 F.3d at 1323; see also, e.g., Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282,
1284 (11th Cir. 2001) (describing a complaint that sets forth allegations against
“defendants” without making any distinctions among them).) This is impermissible;
hence, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed. If Plaintiff chooses to replead, the
second amended complaint must clearly delineate which Defendants are responsible for
each act and which Defendants the claims are brought against.
In addition, Plaintiff has yet again failed to plead several essential elements of her
-4-
claims. For instance, the Amended Complaint does not allege facts demonstrating that
FEA—or any Defendant—satisfies the definition of an “employer” under Title VII or the
ADEA, which requires pleading the requisite number of employees for each defendant.
See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 516 (2006); Garcia v. Copenhaver, Bell & Assocs.,
M.D.’s, P.A., 104 F.3d 1256, 1264 (11th Cir. 1997); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b);
29 U.S.C. § 630(b). Instead, the sparse allegations directed at FEA reveal only that:
(1) Plaintiff had union representation through FEA; and (2) as a result of FEA’s actions,
Plaintiff suffered damage to her career. 1 (Id. ¶¶ 8, 11.) Such allegations fall short of
establishing that FEA is an employer under either the ADEA or Title VII. Despite the
Court’s previous guidance concerning the pleading of ADEA and Title VII claims (see
Doc. 17), the Amended Complaint evidences Plaintiff’s failure, or unwillingness, to draft
a pleading in compliance with Court orders or established legal authority.
Nevertheless, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will permit her to amend
her complaint. But Plaintiff is forewarned that the continued failure to plead the basic
requirements of her intended causes of action—and remedy the deficiencies outlined in
the Court’s Orders—will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice. Before
submitting a second amended pleading, Plaintiff is again encouraged to consult the
resources available to pro se litigants on the Court’s website 2 and take advantage of the
in-person legal information program, which is provided free of charge every Tuesday
1 Plaintiff
appends to the Amended Complaint a composite exhibit, which contains
email correspondence and handwritten notes (Doc. 18-1 (“Exhibit”)); however, nothing
in the Exhibit rectifies the deficiencies in the Amended Complaint.
2 https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/pro se/default.htm
-5-
from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the Orlando Federal Courthouse. 3
IV.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.
Defendant Florida Education Association’s Dispositive Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint With Prejudice and Incorporated Memorandum
(Doc. 19) is GRANTED IN PART, as identified in this Order.
2.
The Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
3.
On or before Wednesday, July 19, 2017, Plaintiff may file a second amended
complaint that remedies the deficiencies identified in this Order. Failure to
timely file will result in closure of this case without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on July 3, 2017.
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
3 Additional
information about the program is available in the following electronic
brochure:
https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/pro se/docs/Brochure Orlando Division.pdf
-6-
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?