Brown v. Snyder

Filing 35

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 32 Second Motion for More Definite Statement - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

Case 4:19-cv-11325-SDD-RSW ECF No. 35 filed 10/13/20

PageID.177

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT BROWN, #742378
Case No. 19-11325
District Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL SNYDER,
Defendant.
___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION FOR A
MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT [ECF No. 32]
On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff Robert Brown, a prison inmate in the custody of the
Michigan Department of corrections, filed a pro se civil complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 [ECF No. 1]. On November 18, 2019, Defendant Snyder filed a motion for more
definite statement [ECF No. 22], which the Court granted on April 8, 2020 [ECF No. 29].
On May 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a self-styled “Amended Complaint for Defendant[‘s]
Motion for a More Definite Statement” [ECF No. 30]. Before the Court at this time is
Defendant’s Second Motion for More Definite Statement [ECF No. 32], in which
Defendant asserts that he needs clarity because Plaintiff’s more recent filing is still
factually deficient, and does not give him fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests. Defendant states that “the so-called ‘Amended Complaint’ is not a
complaint setting forth the parties, facts, claims and relief sought...but is more analogous

-1-

Case 4:19-cv-11325-SDD-RSW ECF No. 35 filed 10/13/20

PageID.178

Page 2 of 3

to a resonse to a motion or an order to show cause.” ECF No. 32, PageID.139.
However, on July 28, 2020, Plaintiff in fact filed an Amended Complaint [ECF
No. 33], which specifies the date on which he filed a grievance against Defendant Snyder
(February 6, 2019), the dates that the grievance was investigated, the date that Defendant
wrote him a misconduct ticket, an allegation that the misconduct ticket was in retaliation
for his protected activity, the date that the misconduct ticket was dismissed, and the
damages that Plaintiff suffered as a result of Defendant’s retaliatory actions, i.e, being
placed in segregation until he was found not guilty, and therefore being removed from his
college program. The Amended Complaint also states the legal bases of his claims: the
First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Plaintiff may or may not ultimately prevail on his claims, but he has provided a
precise chronology of facts and linked those to his legal claims. In short, he has now fully
complied with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) by offering a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that [he] is entitled to relief.”
Accoringly, Defendant’s Second Motion for More Definite Statement [ECF No.
32] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 13,2020

s/R. Steven Whalen
R. Steven Whalen
United States Magistrate Judge

-2-

Case 4:19-cv-11325-SDD-RSW ECF No. 35 filed 10/13/20

PageID.179

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of
record on October 13, 2020 electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager

-3-