Dias v. State of MD Judiciary et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 1/17/2018. (c/m 1/17/18 bmhs, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
LINDA A. DIAS
*
Plaintiff
*
v
*
STATE OF MD JUDICIARY,
TAMARA CHESTER,
KRIS DONAGHY,
CAMILLE BLAKE,
KATHLEEN SNOWDEN, and
ELAINE ALLEN
*
Civil Action No. ELH-17-3281
*
*
*
Defendants
***
MEMORANDUM
The self-represented plaintiff, Linda Dias, is an employee of the Maryland judiciary. On
November 1, 2017, she filed suit against a host of defendants, including the “State of MD
Judiciary.” ECF 1. Dias asserted violations of the “Americans With Disability Act” (“ADA”)
and “Title I (Employment).” Id. at 4.
On December 1, 2017, plaintiff was granted 28 days to supplement her complaint. ECF
2. In directing plaintiff to supplement the complaint, the court noted that it could not discern
whether plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim. Id.
Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Instead, on December 21, 2017, plaintiff
filed “supplemental information,” consisting of eight three-ring binders filled with documents
marked as “exhibits.” ECF 3. The submission is so voluminous that the documents were not
scanned into this court’s electronic docket. Rather, they were filed in paper format only. Dias
has not attempted to explain the relevance of the exhibits or how the exhibits serve to illuminate
the claims she is asserting.
One “exhibit” provides a partial narrative of plaintiff’s claims, but it is not identified as
an amended complaint. See ECF 3 at Ex. D-2 – D-4. Included among the other exhibits
provided by plaintiff are copies of excerpts from an employee handbook for the Maryland
Judiciary published by the Judiciary Office of Fair Practices (Ex. A); a copy of the Maryland
Judiciary policy on the ADA Act (Ex. B); a copy of plaintiff’s job description as a Drug Court
Coordinator in the Anne Arundel County District Court (Ex. C); EEOC intake forms (Ex. E);
emails and correspondence between plaintiff and her supervisors (Ex. F – J); a letter of March
16, 2016, from the Maryland Judiciary’s Office of Fair Practice, closing its investigation into
plaintiff’s claims (Ex. S); a letter of April 11, 2017, from the Maryland Commission on Civil
Rights stating there is no probable cause to believe a violation of law occurred in plaintiff’s case
(Ex. T); plaintiff’s job performance evaluations (Ex. OO – ZZ-7); Explanation of Benefits from
plaintiff’s health insurance company and medical bills (Ex. AAA – AAA-189); a handwritten
daily log of activities at plaintiff’s work site (Ex. BBB); plaintiff’s time sheets (Ex. CCC); and
more than 100 pages of pictures of an office cubicle (Ex. DDD – DDD-105).
The complaint, as supplemented, fails to conform with basic pleading requirements as set
forth in Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2). The Rule requires “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” And, Rule 8(e)(1) requires that each
averment of a pleading be “simple, concise, and direct.” Moreover, a pleading must give the
court and the defendants “‘fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests.’” Swirkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
The nature of plaintiff’s claims may be buried somewhere in the 800 plus pages of
exhibits she filed.
But, there is no discernible method to locate which of the documents
2
presented contain the statement of plaintiff’s intended claims.1 And, it is not the role of this
court to sort through the numerous pages of documents submitted to piece together the claims
plaintiff may have intended to raise, or to attempt to discern the evidentiary value of the
information contained in the documents.
The complaint, as supplemented, “places an
unjustifiable burden on defendants to determine the nature of the claim against them and to
speculate on what their defenses might be,” and also imposes an undue burden on the court to
sort out the factual basis of any claims fairly raised. Holsey v. Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122 (D. Md.
1981); see also Spencer v. Hedges, 838 F.2d 1210 (Table) (4th Cir. 1988).
To be sure, a district court has a duty to construe liberally the pleadings of a selfrepresented litigant. Erickon v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Nevertheless, plaintiff must
allege facts that state a cause of action. See Beaudett v. Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir.
1985) (stating that duty to construe liberally does not require courts to conjure up questions
never squarely presented). In short, it is plaintiff’s responsibility to construct the claims that
comprise the basis for the complaint, not that of the court or the defendants.2
In light of the fact that plaintiff paid the full filing fee, and out of an abundance of
caution, plaintiff will be granted a brief opportunity to file an amended complaint stating only the
facts giving rise to her claims that she has been subjected to discrimination. In filing an amended
complaint, plaintiff is reminded to limit the pleading to a concise narrative of the events
1
Plaintiff is advised that a complete and accurate copy all documents filed with the court
as part of her complaint must be served on each defendant when and if the complaint is served.
The cost for providing such copies will be assigned to plaintiff, not the court.
2
Plaintiff is forewarned that continued filings such as that received in response to this
court’s order to supplement the complaint may be considered evidence of bad faith. See Fed.
Rule of Civ. Proc. 11.
3
involving the named defendants. That narrative should describe the events and include the dates
of the events as well as identification of the persons involved.
Again, plaintiff is forewarned that failure to file an amended complaint that complies
with the guidelines contained in Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 8 will result in dismissal of the
complaint, without prejudice.
An Order follows.
Date: January 17, 2018
/s/
Ellen L. Hollander
United States District Judge
4
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?