Dumas v. Hurley Medical Center et al

Filing 41

OPINION AND ORDER denying 26 Motion for Waiver of Procedrual Formalities. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

LOWANA SHANELL DUMAS, Plaintiff, v. HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR WAIVER OF PROCEDURAL FORMALITIES On February 15, 2011, Plaintiff Lowana Shanell Dumas filed the instant "Motion for Waiver of Procedural Formalities" requesting the court issue a blanket waiver of all "procedural formalities" for Plaintiff's filings. Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se. The court will take this into consideration, as it always does, in the ordinary course of business in managing the case. "A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Giving a generous construction to papers and pleadings does not, however, properly release a pro se plaintiff from all "procedural formalities," whatever that phrase might turn out to mean, or the ordinary requirements of substantive and procedural law. Illustrative of the danger of granting such a motion is Plaintiff's claim that Defendants' motions for a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) were mere "procedural formalities." (Pl. Mot. Br. at 3.) Providing reasonable notice of the Case No. 10-12661

claim(s) made against a defendant is fundamental to the system of notice pleading established by the Federal Rules. It is not a simple technicality as Plaintiff asserts. The nature of federal pleading is by statement of claim, not legal theory. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see also 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1219 (3d ed. 2004). Rule 8 specifically states that "[n]o technical form is required." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). No particular form of words is required.5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1281 (3d ed. 2004). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require "magic words" to make a complaint sufficient, see, e.g., NicSand, Inc. v. 3M Co., 507 F.3d 442, 463 (6th Cir. 2007), but they do require that "allegation[s] must be simple, concise, and direct." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion for Waiver of Procedural Formalities" [Dkt. # 26] is DENIED.

S/Robert H. Cleland ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: March 9, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, March 9, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Lisa Wagner Case Manager and Deputy Clerk [phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\10-12661.DUMAS.Motion.Waive.Procedural.Formalities.nkt.2.wpd

2