Satterlee v. Rev1 Power Services, Inc., et al.

Filing 12

ORDER: Plaintiff Ronald Leeroy Satterlee's Complaint (Doc. # 1 ) is STRICKEN. Satterlee is directed to file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by September 1, 2016. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action without further notice. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/5/2016. (BLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
RONALD LEROY SATTERLEE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-1647-T-33TBM

REV1 POWER SERVICES, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This cause is before Court upon sua sponte review of pro
se Plaintiff Ronald Leroy Satterlee’s Complaint (Doc. # 1).
For the reasons stated below, the Court strikes the Complaint
and grants Satterlee leave to file an amended complaint by
September 1, 2016.
I.

Background
On June 20, 2016, Satterlee filed a complaint against

Defendant “Rev1 Power Services, Inc., et al.” for breach of
contract.

(Doc. # 1).

Satterlee’s primary grievance appears

to stem from Rev1 Power Services’ decision to rescind its
conditional

offer

contractor.

to

hire

Satterlee

as

an

independent

(Id.).

The Court construes pro se pleadings liberally and holds
them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by

1

attorneys. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir.
2003).

But, “a pro se litigant is still required to conform

to procedural rules, and a district judge is not required to
rewrite a deficient pleading.”

McFarlin v. Douglas Cty., 587

Fed. Appx. 593, 595 (11th Cir. 2014).

A district judge may

sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with the
federal rules.

Id.

(citations omitted).

Likewise, “[t]he

district judge also has the inherent authority sua sponte to
require the plaintiff to file a more definite statement.” Id.
(citing Fikes v. City of Daphne, 79 F.3d 1079, 1083 n.6 (11th
Cir. 1996)).
Pursuant to Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., a pleading that
states a claim must contain, among other things, “a short
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.”

Additionally, Rule 10(b) provides that

“[a] party must state its claims or defenses in numbered
paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set
of circumstances.”
these

rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

“require

the

pleader

to

Taken together,

present

his

claims

discretely and succinctly. . . .” Fikes, 79 F.3d at 1082
(citation omitted).
Even when construed liberally to account for Satterlee’s
pro se status, the complaint contravenes Rules 8(a) and 10(b).
2

The complaint is twenty-three pages long and is replete with
a disorderly mass of information.

Satterlee arbitrarily

divides the complaint into subsections entitled “Cause of
Action,” “Rev1 Power Services, Inc.,” “Rev1Power Services
Breach of Contract,” “Argument,” and “Conclusion.”
at

2,

4,

8,

17,

21).

Each

subsection

(Doc. # 1

incorporates

by

reference all preceding allegations. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 19, 23-24,
31).

Consequently, “the Court is faced with the onerous task

of sifting out irrelevancies in order to decide for itself
which facts are relevant to [the] particular cause of action
asserted.” Durrance v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., No. 3:12cv-1097-J-99MMH-MCR, 2012 WL 5416950, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct.
16, 2012).
Also, Satterlee’s complaint is chiefly comprised of a
series of email exchanges between him and individuals involved
in Rev1 Power Services’ hiring process.

This means that “any

allegations that are material are buried beneath innumerable
pages of rambling irrelevancies.” Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d
1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001).

Amidst the pages of irrelevant

email correspondence, Satterlee alleges facts in order to
support his breach of contract claim.

He also appears to

claim that, in the course of terminating his employment offer,
Rev1

Power

Services

committed
3

libel

and

defamation

of

character and “knowingly violated 8 C.F.R. 274a.2.” (Doc. # 1
at ¶ 8). But, Satterlee does not identify the essential facts
that support those allegations.

Simply put, the way that

Satterlee drafted his complaint makes it difficult, if not
impossible, for the defendant to adequately prepare defenses
to Satterlee’s claims.
Further, Satterlee denotes in the caption that this case
is brought against “Rev1 Power Services, Inc., et al.” but
neglects to identify any defendant other than Rev1 Power
Services

in

the

complaint.

Compounding

the

confusion,

Satterlee informed the Court in his “Certificate of Service”
that he attempted to serve four “defendants” in this case: Bob
Coggin, Layla Bonis, Rick Ehrgott, and Ricky Ehrgott.
# 5).

(Doc.

But, Satterlee does not name any of these four

individuals as defendants in the case caption as required by
Rule 10(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.

Because of this inconsistency,

the Court cannot determine who is a party to this case.
The Court will provide Satterlee with an opportunity to
draft an amended complaint that complies with the pleading
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The

amended complaint should assert in a separate count each claim
founded on a separate transaction or occurrence.

Ideally,

each count should allege violations of only one statute or
4

constitutional provision.

Additionally, to the extent that

Satterlee seeks to bring claims against Coggin, Bonis, Rick
Ehrgott,

or

Ricky

Ehrgott,

he

defendants in the case caption.
amended

complaint,

Satterlee

must

name

each

of

these

Finally, when drafting the
should

reference

only

the

specific facts essential to support his allegations so as to
provide notice to the defendant or defendants of what the
claims are and the grounds upon which those claims rest.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff Ronald Leeroy Satterlee’s Complaint (Doc. # 1)
is

STRICKEN.

Satterlee is directed to file an amended

complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure by September 1, 2016.

Failure to do so will result

in dismissal of this action without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 5th
day of August, 2016.

5