Kuerbitz v. Bouchard et al

Filing 35

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MICHAEL BOUCHARD'S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT (ECF NO. 16 ) AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 DAYS AFTER JUDGE LEITMAN RULES ON THE PENDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (KBro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ARNOLD KUERBITZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:24-CV-10774
District Judge Matthew F. Leitman
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

MICHAEL J. BOUCHARD, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT MICHAEL BOUCHARD’S MOTION
FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT (ECF NO. 16) AND REQUIRING
PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 DAYS AFTER
JUDGE LEITMAN RULES ON THE PENDING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
A.

Introduction
On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff Arnold Kuerbitz, proceeding pro se, initiated

this action against Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard, Oakland County
Prosecutor Karen McDonald, and various John and Jone Does, listed as unknown
Oakland County Sheriff Deputies, unknown Oakland County Health Department
workers/RNs, and unknown Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor(s). (ECF No.
1.) Plaintiff asserts eight counts, each of which consist of one lengthy paragraph
broadly asserting various wrongdoings by Defendants. Although difficult to
discern, Plaintiff appears to bring claims for denial of medical attention (ECF No.
1, PageID.4; Claim 1); “wanton infliction of pain and suffering” and “cruel and

unusual punishment” (ECF No. 1, PageID.4-5; Claim 2); denial of “due process
right to access the courts under equal protection of law and right to access the law
library” (ECF No. 1, PageID.5; Claim 3); another claim for “wanton infliction of
pain and suffering” and “cruel and unusual punishment” (ECF No. 1, PageID.5-6;
Claim 4)1; denial of his right to association (ECF No. 1, PageID.6; Claim 5); denial
of a speedy trial (ECF No. 1, PageID.6-7; Claim 6); denial of his right to a jury “by
fair cross section of society” (ECF No. 1, PageID.7; Claim 7); and, malicious
prosecution (ECF No. 1, PageID.7-8; Claim 8).
On May 16, 2024, Defendant Bouchard filed a motion for a more definite
statement. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a
response, which was granted. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff was given until June 28,
2024 to respond to Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement, and he
timely responded on June 21, 2024. (ECF No. 24.)
Judge Matthew Leitman has referred the case to me for “all pretrial
proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all non−dispositive matters
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation on all
dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).” (ECF No. 13.)
B.

Analysis

It appears that Plaintiff asserts Claim 2 against Defendant Bouchard, the
unknown deputies, and the unknown health officials, but Claim 4 against only
Defendant Bouchard and the unknown deputies.
2
1

In his motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint is “so sparse and
unclear” that he cannot reasonably be expected to frame a response. (ECF No. 16,
PageID.48.) Defendant interprets the complaint as asserting all claims against him
except for the third claim but asserts that “Plaintiff has failed to identify what
allegations are against Defendant Bouchard, when they occurred, what injury or
harm was suffered by Plaintiff as a result, and under what law.” (ECF No. 16,
PageID.48.)
The pertinent rule provides:
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. The
motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must
point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the
court orders a more definite statement and the order is not obeyed
within 14 days after notice of the order or within the time the court
sets, the court may strike the pleading or issue any other appropriate
order.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s complaint “contains few facts but consists
of numerous legal conclusions against multiple (many unknown) Defendants.”
(ECF No. 16, PageID.53.) The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s complaint, while split into
eight general claims, “consists mostly of conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts
not obviously connected to a particular cause of action, defendant, or specific
period of time” (ECF No. 16, PageID.54), such that Defendants “cannot reasonably
3

prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e); see Bommarito v. Equifax Information
Services, Inc., 340 F.R.D. 566, 569 (E.D. Mich. 2022) (Patti, M.J.) (“The goal of
the complaint is to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the … claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.’”) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (further
internal citation omitted).
The pleading does not provide “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Even if the
two-page “Parties Presented” provides some factual allegations (ECF No. 1,
PageID.2-3), the eight numbered claims are simply paragraphs referring vaguely to
alleged violations, without specifying precisely which defendant is implicated, and
precisely how that defendant is implicated. One cannot be expected to answer the
various causes of action in a pleading when the claim’s contents consist mostly of
a reference to a constitutional right, with general allegations against most or all
defendants that they violated Plaintiff’s rights, in an expansive manner, during a
two and a half year time period. Moreover, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges claims
against the defendants generally, and “damage claims against government officials
arising from alleged violations of constitutional rights must allege, with
particularity, facts that demonstrate what each defendant did to violate the asserted
constitutional right.” Lanman v. Hinson, 529 F.3d 673, 684 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing
Terrance v. Northville Reg'l Psychiatric Hosp., 286 F.3d 834, 842 (6th Cir. 2002)).
4

Plaintiff’s June 21, 2024 response does not help his cause. Plaintiff provides
some additional background information in his four-page response but fails to
specify what each Defendant is alleged to have done, and fails to provide many
details to support his sweeping allegations. Plaintiff asserts that various wrongs
happened to him but does not explain how and when each defendant is alleged to
have committed those wrongs. Without a more detailed explanation of his alleged
injuries and specifically how they were caused by each defendant, Defendants
cannot reasonably be expected to respond to the complaint.
C.

Order
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement (ECF No.

16) is GRANTED. I have also issued a report and recommendation that Judge
Leitman dismiss Defendant McDonald from this action based on prosecutorial
immunity. If Judge Leitman agrees with my recommendation, Defendant
McDonald should not be included in any amended complaint. If Judge Leitman
rejects my recommendation, Defendant McDonald may be included in the
amended complaint. Thus, I will order that Plaintiff not amend his complaint until
after Judge Leitman rules on the pending report and recommendation.
No later than fourteen days after the resolution of the pending report and
recommendation, Plaintiff SHALL file a more definite statement, in the form of an
amended complaint, that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (“General Rules of
5

Pleading”) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 (“Form of Pleadings”). Each claim in Plaintiff’s
amended complaint should (1) clearly identify what allegations are against each
Defendant, (2) describe, with reasonable specificity, when they occurred, (3)
identify what injury or harm Plaintiff suffered as a result of each Defendant and (4)
provide which federal law(s) through each claim is brought. Allegations should be
made in short, numbered paragraphs, and claims should be set forth in separate,
labeled counts, for ease of response, and in conformity with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
Plaintiff is hereby cautioned that, should he fail to comply with this order,
the Undersigned may enter a report recommending dismissal of his claims. IT IS
SO ORDERED. 2

Dated: September 24, 2024

s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a
period of fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this order within
which to file objections for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
6
2