Graham v. St. John's United Methodist Church et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 17 Motion for More Definite Statement. The plaintiff has provided sufficiently detailed information in his complaint in order for the defendant to know what is charged. Accordingly, the (Doc. 17) motion for a more definite statement is denied. Defendant Palmer shall file a responsive pleading to the complaint in accordance with Rule 12(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See attached document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 6/25/2012. (ajt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RICHARD A. GRAHAM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ST. JOHN'S UNITED METHODIST
CHURCH, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 3:12-cv-00297-MJR-PMF

ORDER
FRAZIER, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is defendant Reverend Sheryl Palmer’s (Doc. 17) motion for a more
definite statement made pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the
following reasons, the (Doc. 17) motion for a more definite statement is denied.
“A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive
pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare
a response.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e). “Such relief applies to a small class of pleadings that, though
sufficiently intelligible for the court to be able to make out one or more potentially viable legal
theories on which the claimant might proceed, nonetheless are so vague or ambiguous that the
opposing party cannot respond, even with a simple denial, in good faith or without prejudice to
himself.” Land O'Lakes Purina Feed, LLC v. WelkCo, LLC., 10-891, 2011 WL 1465632, 2
(S.D.Ill. April 18, 2011) (quotations omitted) (citing Vician v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No.
05–cv–144, 2006 WL 694740, 9 (N.D.Ind. Mar.16, 2006); Metso Paper, Inc. v. Enerquin Air
Inc., No. 06–C–1170, 2007 WL 486635, 5 (E.D.Wis. Feb.12, 2007) (“Rule 12(e) motions are
generally disfavored and are not intended as a substitute for the normal discovery process.”)

1

(brackets and quotation omitted); Parus v. Cator, No. 05–C–0063–C, 2005 WL 1458770, 3
(W.D.Wis. June 17, 2005) (noting that “Rule 12(e) motions are rarely granted” and that “judges
are admonished to exercise their discretion sparingly in ordering more definite statements.”)).
“Thus, if a plaintiff's complaint is sufficiently definite to enable a defendant to know what is
charged, it is sufficient to withstand a Rule 12(e) motion.” Id. (citations omitted).
The plaintiff has brought several claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (“ADA”) against the defendants in this case. In the most generalized sense, the ADA
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112, 12132. The term
“disability” is defined by statute as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one
or more major life activities of such individual.” See id. § 12102(1)(A). The statute also sets
forth that “major life activities” include “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing,
hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning,
reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.” See id. § 12102(2)(A). Here,
the plaintiff has stated the following in his complaint:
In 1996, Graham was the victim of a serious beating in which he suffered multiple
concussions, multiple fractures including parts of his face, and severe contusions
over a substantial portion of his body. Though Graham survived the beating, his
head injuries resulted in a permanent disability of his cognitive processes leaving
Graham with difficulty articulating his thoughts and comprehending; especially in
stressful situations. As a result of sustaining severe head injuries which left him
with permanent brain damage, while intelligent, Graham has difficulty
articulating his thoughts and is slow to comprehend.
Doc. 2 at 3 ¶ 11-13.
Defendant Palmer has filed the instant (Doc. 17) motion for a more definite statement
asserting that the above language so vague so vague or ambiguous that she cannot prepare an
answer. According to defendant Palmer, the plaintiff has failed to allege how his cognitive
disability has substantially limited his major life activities. The Court does not agree. The
2

plaintiff has provided sufficiently detailed information in his complaint in order for the defendant
to know what is charged. Accordingly, the (Doc. 17) motion for a more definite statement is
denied. Defendant Palmer shall file a responsive pleading to the complaint in accordance with
Rule 12(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 25, 2012.
/s/ Philip M. Frazier
PHILIP M. FRAZIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3