Peppers v. St. Clair County et al

Filing 27

ORDER granting 18 Motion for More Definite Statement. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an amended complaint no later than August 24, 2017, that complies with the Court's order. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 8/8/2017. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROSHANDA PEPPERS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ST. CLAIR COUNTY, DEBRA MOORE,
And FRANK BERGMANN,
Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-1365-DRH-RJD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Now before the Court is Defendants St. Clair County, Debra Moore, and
Frank Bergman June 29, 2017, motion for a more definite statement (Doc. 18).
Specifically, the defendants request an order requiring Plaintiff Roshanda Peppers
to provide a more definite statement regarding the specific claims she is asserting
against each named defendant, as required by FEDERAL RULE

OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE

12(e).
Under Rule 12(e), 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). The motion must “point out the defects complained of and the details
desired.” The Seventh Circuit considers Rule 12(e) one of several “tools” the
district court may use to require additional specificity in a pleading. Hoskins v.

Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir. 2003).
Page 1 of 3

As of today’s date, plaintiff has not responded to the motion for a more
definite statement. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the Court considers the failure
to respond as an admission of the merits of the motion. 1 Additionally, the Court
finds that plaintiff’s sparse allegations against each defendant are insufficient and
render it impossible for the defendants to prepare a response. Accordingly, the
Court GRANTS the motion for a more definite statement (Doc. 18).
Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an amended complaint on or before August
24, 2017. The amended complaint shall set forth her particular claims against
each named defendant. Specifically, plaintiff shall include the following details in
her amended complaint:
1. Identify any and all claims plaintiff is attempting to assert against
Defendant Bergman;
2. Identify the conduct in which plaintiff alleges Defendant Bergman
engaged in violation of any law;
3. To the extent plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim for disability
discrimination against any defendant, identify plaintiff’s alleged
disability and the adverse action that plaintiff alleges each
defendant took because of her alleged disability; and
4. Identify the federal and state laws under which plaintiff is
attempting to assert claims for retaliation against Defendants St.
Clair County and Debra Moore.
1

Local Rule 7.1(c) provides in part: “Failure to timely file a response to a motion may, in the
Court’s discretion, be considered an admission of the merits of the motion.”
Page 2 of 3

If plaintiff fails to comply with this order by the aforementioned deadline,
the Court may strike the December 19, 2016 complaint and dismiss this matter
for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 8th day of August, 2017.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R. Herndon
Date: 2017.08.08
17:36:08 -05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3