Ledbetter v. Good Samaritan Ministries
Filing
70
ORDER granting 50 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or Alternatively, to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file his second amended complaint within 30 days from the date of this Order. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 7/5/2012. (mtm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LINZIE J. LEDBETTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOD SAMARITAN MINISTRIES, 1
Defendant.
No. 10-cv-740-DRH-SCW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
I.
INTRODUCTION
Now before the Court is defendant Good Samaritan Industries- A Project of
the Carbondale Interfaith Council’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in
the alternative, to dismiss plaintiff Linzie J. Ledbetter’s amended complaint (Doc.
50). As plaintiff’s amended complaint, consisting of 20 pages of narrative, does
not comply with the FEDERAL RULES
OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE and is wholly inadequate
to put defendant on notice of the allegations against it, the Court GRANTS
defendant’s motion and dismisses plaintiff’s amended complaint without
prejudice.
1
The Court notes plaintiff incorrectly identified defendant as Good Samaritan Ministries.
Defendant’s correct entity name is Good Samaritan Ministries- A Project of the Carbondale
Interfaith Council. The Court refers to defendant by its correct entity name.
Page 1 of 7
II.
Generally,
plaintiff
BACKGROUND
alleges
defendant
unlawfully
terminated
and
simultaneously rehired plaintiff based on his race. On June 21, 2010, plaintiff
filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC). On June 28, 2010, the EEOC issued plaintiff a dismissal
and notice of suit rights.
On September 24, 2010, plaintiff filed a pro se
complaint alleging various claims of race and sex discrimination and retaliation in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
(Title VII) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Doc. 1, p. 2). Initially, plaintiff alleged seven
counts of discrimination (See Doc. 1).
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, or alternatively, for failure to state a claim under
FEDERAL RULE
OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(6) (Doc. 15), which the Court granted on
September 22, 2011 (Doc. 48). The Court dismissed plaintiff’s Counts I and II
with prejudice. The Court dismissed plaintiff’s Counts III through VII without
prejudice, allowing plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. Thus, plaintiff
filed the instant 24 page narrative complaint on October 24, 2011 (Doc. 49).
Thereafter, defendant filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings
under RULE 12(c), or alternatively, to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc.
50). As plaintiff has responded to defendant’s motion, it is ripe for resolution
(Doc. 51).
Page 2 of 7
III.
LAW AND APPLICATION
Defendant first seeks judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c).
See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). Defendant correctly states that to prove a claim of race
discrimination, plaintiff “must show he is similarly situated with respect to
performance, qualification, and conduct.” Snipes v. Ill. Dept. of Corr., 291 F.3d
460, 463 (7th Cir. 2002). Thus, in reliance on plaintiff’s statement in his
complaint that, “[i]n similarly situated 2,3,4, above, the situations are not
consider[ed] similarly situated, but are about a general staff person not being able
to make decisions on another general staff person shift,” defendant states plaintiff
has pleaded himself out of court. See Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 846
(7th Cir. 1999) (“[A] pro se complainant can plead himself out of court by
pleading facts that undermine the allegations set forth in his complaint.”). As set
forth in more detail below, plaintiff’s instant amended complaint is wholly
inadequate to put either defendant or the Court on notice of plaintiff’s allegations.
As such, the Court declines to grant defendant judgment on the pleadings at this
time.
Alternatively, defendant seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s amended complaint as
it does not comply with RULE 8(a)(2) or RULE 10(b). See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2);
FED. R. CIV. P. 10(b). RULE 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain, “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R.
CIV. P. 8(a)(2); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Additionally, as to the
form of pleadings, RULE 10(b) states, “[a] party must state its claims or defenses
Page 3 of 7
in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of
circumstances . . . If doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a
separate transaction or occurrence--and each defense other than a denial--must
be stated in a separate count or defense.” FED. R. CIV. P. 10(b).
The Seventh Circuit has recently commented on the purposes of RULES 8
and 10, noting, “[t]he primary purpose of these rules is to give defendants notice
of the claims against them and the grounds supporting the claims.” Stanard v.
Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank
Nev., N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2007) (Rule 8(a)); Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Further, “[t]he pleading requirements also
‘frame[ ] the issue[s] and provide the basis for informed pretrial proceedings.’” Id.
(quoting Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000)
(discussing Rule 10(b)))
As the Nygren Court further noted, two themes emerge from the Seventh
Circuit’s treatment of dismissals under RULES 8 and 10. First, “[w]here a
complaint does not comply with Rule 8's mandate of ‘a short and plain statement
of the claim’ but nevertheless puts the defendant on notice of the plaintiff's claims,
dismissal is inappropriate ‘merely because of the presence of superfluous
matter.’” Id. (quoting Davis v. Ruby Foods, Inc., 269 F.3d 818, 820 (7th Cir.
2001)); but see United States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed–Martin Corp., 328 F.3d
374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003) (“Length may make a complaint unintelligible[ ] by
scattering and concealing in a morass of irrelevancies the few allegations that
Page 4 of 7
matter.”). However, second, and most relevant to the instant dispute, “[t]hough
length
alone
is
generally
insufficient
to
justify
rejecting
a
complaint,
unintelligibility is certainly a legitimate reason for doing so.” Id. at 797-98. Thus,
as, “the issue is notice; where the lack of organization and basic coherence
renders a complaint too confusing to determine the facts that constitute the
alleged wrongful conduct, dismissal is an appropriate remedy.” Id. at 798 (citing
Garst, 328 F.2d at 378 (“Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings
straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin
from a bucket of mud.”)).
Plaintiff’s instant complaint consists of 20 pages of difficult-to-follow
narrative generally alleging various claims of discrimination that encompass
distinct incidents and persons. As plaintiff does not differentiate which facts
support which claims, and does not state claims simply and concisely in
numbered paragraphs each limited to a single set of circumstances, defendant
and the Court are unable to discern the basis of plaintiff’s allegations. Based on
plaintiff’s narrative, it is impossible for defendant to differentiate and respond to
the claims alleged against it, a task which is especially necessary in the instant
case as the Court has dismissed two of plaintiff’s initially alleged counts with
prejudice. Even under the liberal pleading requirements of pro se complaints,
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), plaintiff’s complaint is wholly
inadequate to put defendant on notice of the claims against it. Thus, defendant’s
motion is GRANTED (Doc. 50). However, the Court will not dismiss plaintiff’s
Page 5 of 7
remaining claims on the merits, and the dismissal is without prejudice. Thus,
should plaintiff choose, he will file within 30 days from the date of this Order, a
second amended complaint in compliance with the following directives:
1. For the sake of clarity, plaintiff shall set forth separate
transactions or occurrences as separate counts.
2. The pleadings within the separate counts shall be set forth in
numbered paragraphs.
3. The factual allegations, set forth in the numbered paragraphs,
shall, where possible, be organized in chronological fashion.
4. Each paragraph shall be short and concise and shall state (1)
what is alleged to have occurred; (2) where possible, the date and
location that the action is alleged to have occurred; (3) the parties
responsible for the alleged action; and (4) how the alleged action is
related to a deprivation of plaintiff’s rights.
5. If possible, the pleading shall be typewritten. If the pleading must
be handwritten, plaintiff shall take care to use neat and legible
handwriting. Further, plaintiff shall write only on one side of each
page and shall double space the document by skipping lines on the
page.
6. Finally, the second amended complaint which shall comply with
the directives of this Order, the Court’s previous Order of dismissal
(Doc. 48), the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, and the Local
Rules of this Court, must be filed with the Court within 30 days of
the date of this Order. Failure to file the pleading by that date will
result in dismissal of this case with prejudice.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, to dismiss plaintiff’s amended
complaint (Doc. 50).
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed without
Page 6 of 7
prejudice. Plaintiff shall file his second amended complaint within 30 days of the
date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 5th day of July, 2012.
Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2012.07.05
15:01:58 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Page 7 of 7
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?