WRIGHT v. BANK OF AMERICA

Filing 25

ORDER construing 20 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim as a motion for more definite statement and ordering Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by January 27, 2017. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 1/5/2017. (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
LORETTA WRIGHT,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

*

Defendant.

*

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-87 (CDL)

O R D E R
Pro

se

Plaintiff

Loretta

Wright

summarily

asserts

that

Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (1) used a contract of adhesion
to deprive her of home ownership and (2) wrongfully deprived
Wright of an opportunity to cure a delinquency on her loan.
Compl. § III, ECF No. 1.

It is not clear from the Complaint

what claims Wright is attempting to assert.

And Wright did not

allege any facts to support her claims, such as facts regarding
her contract with the Bank, her delinquency on the loan, her
efforts to cure the delinquency, or how the Bank deprived her of
home ownership.
The Bank filed a motion to dismiss Wright’s Complaint for
failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

The Bank correctly asserts that Wright failed to

articulate a short and plain statement of her claims as required
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).

The Bank also

correctly

asserts

that

Wright’s

complaint

does

not

contain

“sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.’”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)).

Wright contends that she does not need to

allege specific facts in her Complaint.
“detailed
explain

factual
the

“requires

allegations”

grounds

more

than

of

are

her

labels

not

She is wrong.
required,

entitlement

and

to

conclusions,

While

Wright

relief,

and

a

must
which

formulaic

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

Here, Wright’s Complaint simply does

not include sufficient factual allegations “to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level,” and it does not give the
Bank fair notice of what her claims are or the grounds on which
they rest.

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

In her response to the Bank’s motion to dismiss, Wright
argues

that

the

Bank

should

have

filed

a

motion

for

more

definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).
Such a motion is appropriate when a pleading “is so vague or
ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
from

these

previous
litigants

shortcomings.

admonitions
under

from

similar

Wright’s Complaint certainly suffers
Given
the

Wright’s

Court

of

circumstances

2

pro

se

Appeals
should

status

that
be

pro

given

and
se
one

opportunity to amend their complaint to cure deficiencies, the
Court construes the Bank’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20) as a
motion for more definite statement, which is granted.
The Court orders Wright to file an amended complaint that
sets forth exactly what claims Wright is pursuing against the
Bank, along with basic factual allegations that support each
claim.

The amended complaint must be filed by January 27, 2017.

There will be no extensions of this deadline; if Wright does not
file her amended complaint by January 27, 2017, this action will
be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or failure of her
complaint to state a claim.

Defendant will have the right to

file a new motion to dismiss any amended complaint filed by
Wright

if

it

concludes

that

the

amended

complaint

likewise

should be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 5th day of January, 2017.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3