Roman v. Tyco Simplex Grinnell

Filing 7

ORDER: Plaintiff Gilbert Roman's Complaint (Doc. # 1 ) is DISMISSED. Roman is directed to file an amended complaint that provides the information described in this Order by February 3, 2017. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action without further notice. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/3/2017. (DMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
GILBERT ROMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-3449-T-33AEP

TYCO SIMPLEX GRINNELL,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon sua sponte review
of pro se Plaintiff Gilbert Roman’s Complaint, filed on
December 19, 2016. (Doc. # 1). For the reasons that follow,
the Court dismisses the Complaint and grants Roman leave to
file an amended complaint by February 3, 2017.
I.

Background
Roman initiated this action on December 19, 2016. (Doc.

# 1). In his Complaint, Roman states in full:
While working for Tyco Simplex Grinnell, I was
harassed, eggs, mucus, Grease or tar thrown on
company van. Placed in unfair and unsafe work
Conditions. Causing me high blood pressure. All
because an oral Contract was breached.
I seek 7 million dollars in compensation
punitive damages For the wrong done to me.
(Id. at 1).

1

and

Additionally,

Roman

filed

two

attachments

to

the

Complaint. The first is Roman’s affidavit stating that he is
a fire sprinkler inspector who worked for Defendant Tyco
Simplex Grinnell. (Doc. # 1-2). Although the Complaint simply
states that he was harassed because an oral contract was
breached, the attached affidavit asserts that Roman is also
entitled to relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA) of 1970,
and a number of Supreme Court cases. (Id.).
The second attachment is labelled a background exhibit
and includes allegations regarding Roman’s employment with
Tyco, the purported breach of contract, and the retaliatory
harassment. (Doc. # 1-3). Additionally, that exhibit includes
a photograph of Roman’s work van, which was allegedly egged
by Tyco employees to harass Roman. (Id.).
Based

on

the

allegations

of

the

Complaint

and

attachments, it appears that Roman is attempting to assert a
breach of oral contract claim against his former employer,
Tyco,

for

failing

to

assign

Roman

to

higher-paying

assignments as a fire alarm inspector, which he was promised
when he accepted the job. Additionally, Roman alleges that
supervisors

at

Tyco

harassed

and

retaliated

against

because he complained about the contract violation.
2

him

II.

Analysis
The Court construes pro se pleadings liberally and holds

them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
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
F. App’x 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.”

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

10(b).

Taken

together, these rules “require the pleader to present his

3

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

factual

allegations

are

disorganized,

and

primarily

contained in the affidavit and background exhibit attached to
the Complaint. This means that “any allegations that are
material

are

buried

beneath

.

.

.

pages

of

rambling

irrelevancies.” Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th
Cir. 2001). Roman should lay out these facts clearly and
succinctly in numbered paragraphs in the amended complaint,
rather than including his factual allegations in attached
exhibits.
Also, the Complaint should be dismissed because it is
unclear what claims Roman is bringing against Tyco. See Byrne
v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1129-30 (11th Cir. 2001)(noting
that a complaint that fails to identify claims with sufficient
clarity

constitutes

dismissed).

Although

a

“shotgun
the

civil

pleading,”
cover

which

sheet

must

states

be

that

Roman’s cause of action is brought under Title VII, the facts
alleged in Roman’s Complaint and background exhibit focus on
a purported breach of an oral contract regarding Roman’s work
assignments and the retaliation Roman believes he faced after
4

complaining about the breach of contract. If Roman wishes to
bring a breach of contract claim, Roman must plead clearly
the existence of a valid contract, a material breach of that
contract, and damages resulting from the breach. Beck v.
Lazard Freres & Co., LLC, 175 F.3d 913, 914 (11th Cir.
1999)(“The elements of a breach of contract action are (1) a
valid contract; (2) a material breach; and (3) damages.”
(citation omitted)).
If Roman wishes to bring a claim under Title VII,
pursuant to the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, Roman
must allege that he was discriminated against or harassed on
the basis of one of Title VII’s protected classes, which
include race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. See
McCray

v.

2008)(“Title

Potter,
VII

263

does

F.

not

App’x

771,

encompass

773

every

(11th

Cir.

tribulation

a

worker may experience in the workplace, but instead only
proscribes employment discrimination based on race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin.”). Additionally, Roman’s
attached affidavit asserts that he is entitled to relief under
OSHA, but does not identify what conduct by Tyco violated
that Act or the specific sections of the Act under which Roman
is bringing a claim. (Doc. # 1-2). Therefore, Roman has not
stated a claim under either statute that can support this
5

Court’s federal question jurisdiction. If he wishes to assert
a cause of action under Title VII or another federal statute,
Roman

must

specify

that

legal

basis

and

allege

facts

sufficient to state a claim under the statute in the amended
complaint.
Still,

state

causes

of

action,

including

breach

of

contract claims, may be brought in federal court pursuant to
the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. To bring a claim in
federal court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, a complaint
must allege that complete diversity of citizenship exists
between the plaintiff and defendant and that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)(“The
district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between . . . citizens of different States”).
Although Roman asserted on the civil cover sheet that he
was bringing a claim under the Court’s federal question
jurisdiction, the Court recognizes that Roman also marked on
the cover sheet that he is a citizen of this state and that
Tyco is both incorporated and has its principal place of
business in another state, which means that diversity of
citizenship exists. (Doc. # 1-1). Additionally, the Complaint
6

and cover sheet state that Roman is seeking $7,000,000 in
compensatory and punitive damages, which is above the $75,000
amount in controversy requirement. (Doc. # 1 at 1; Doc. # 11). However, the Complaint does not allege the citizenships
of either party or explain Roman’s calculation of damages.
Because
ensure

federal

the

have

exercise

proper

courts

of

an

independent

jurisdiction,

duty

the

to

Court

instructs Roman to clarify the basis for jurisdiction in the
amended complaint. Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1299
(11th Cir. 2001)(“[B]ecause a federal court is powerless to
act

beyond

its

jurisdiction,

a

statutory
court

grant

must

of

subject

zealously

matter

[e]nsure

that

jurisdiction exists over a case, and should itself raise the
question of subject matter jurisdiction at any point in the
litigation where a doubt about jurisdiction arises.”).
In his amended complaint, Roman must organize all his
factual

allegations

paragraphs,

as

clearly

required

by

and
the

succinctly
Federal

in

Rules

numbered
of

Civil

Procedure. Roman should clearly state what causes of action
he is bringing against Tyco, and specify the basis for this
Court’s

jurisdiction.

If

Roman

wishes

to

bring

multiple

causes of action, he may; but, he must separate each cause of

7

action into a separate count and state the factual and legal
basis for his claim under each count.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff

Gilbert

Roman’s

Complaint

(Doc.

#

1)

is

DISMISSED. Roman is directed to file an amended complaint
that provides the information described in this Order by
February 3, 2017. Failure to do so will result in dismissal
of this action without further notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
3rd day of January, 2017.

8