Cowans v. State of Mississippi

Filing 12

ORDER requiring a more definite statement. Within twenty-one days of this order, the Plaintiff shall file with the court an amended complaint that complies with the terms of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 11/6/2015. (bbf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
WILLIE E. COWANS
vs.

Plaintiff
Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-101-MPM-JMV

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, DESOTO COUNTY
JUSTICE COURT, ANNIE JAMERSON, JAMES
WOODS, JESSIE J. MAXWELL, JULIUS GUY,
TERRY GUY, and ALFONZO GUY

Defendants

ORDER REQUIRING A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

The court, on its own motion, finds that the Plaintiff, Willie E. Cowans, should be
required to provide a more definite statement, in the form of an amended complaint, pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(e).
The court acknowledges its obligation to liberally construe the pleadings of a lay person,
like the Plaintiff, when they are proceeding in a case without benefit of counsel. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). However, the court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s original
complaint, comprised of over 140 pages of miscellaneous copies of a variety of documents, and
the Plaintiff’s apparent effort to amend the complaint by filing an additional 62 pages of what
appear to be many of the same documents, and the court cannot discern the factual basis for the
complaint or the basis for invoking this court’s jurisdiction, if any. Stated differently, the court
cannot discern what actions or inactions of which person(s), if any, Plaintiff believes give him a
claim against them in this court.
In light of the Plaintiff’s pro se status, he is further instructed that in order to bring suit in
federal court, a case must satisfy the requirements for subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter

1

jurisdiction can primarily be met in two ways. First, the case brought can arise under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This first type of subject
matter jurisdiction is called “Federal Question Jurisdiction.” Second, the case may be brought in
federal court if it involves more than $75,000 in controversy and the parties (all plaintiffs and all
defendants) are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This second type of subject matter
jurisdiction is called “Diversity Jurisdiction.” The claims asserted in Plaintiff’s complaint do not
identify any law of the United States, including a constitutional right, alleged to have been
violated by Defendants. Further, the complaint fails to plainly state the citizenship of any
Defendants. Because the citizenship of the parties cannot be determined from the pleading, the
court is unable to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists. Without either type of subject
matter jurisdiction, this court cannot hear Plaintiff’s case.
The court understands that the Plaintiff seeks relief of some sort for some undefined
matter(s) appearing to extend in time from the year 1983 to present, but that is not sufficient to
bring a claim in this court, and because the Plaintiff has never provided the court with a pleading
with a proper style, or expressly named individuals as defendants; the list of Defendants on the
court's docket represents only the best guess of court staff as to who Cowans may mean to
include as Defendants. Cowans must, instead, amend his complaint to clearly state who it is that
he means to join as Defendants, and as to each such person, state: in what state they are resident
citizens, what they did or failed to do, when they did or failed to do it, and the relief sought from
that person as a result. It is, therefore,
ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Within twenty-one days of this order, the Plaintiff shall file with the court an
amended complaint that complies with the terms of this order.

2

a. The amended complaint shall have a proper style at the top of the document. The
Plaintiff can use the style of this order as a guide. (The style of the case is made
up of the words above the phrase "ORDER REQUIRING A MORE DEFINITE
STATEMENT.") Every individual that the Plaintiff intends to sue shall be listed
as a Defendant as set forth in the style. If there is any person in the list of
Defendants, in the above style, who are witnesses, but not Defendants, the
plaintiff shall remove their names from the list of Defendants.
b. The amended complaint shall include a “short and plain statement of the grounds
for the court’s jurisdiction.” Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a)(1). As
explained above, this court typically hears complaints only between citizens of
different states (28 U.S.C § 1332) or civil suits “arising under the Constitution,
laws or treaties of the United States.” (28 U.S.C. § 1331). As the Plaintiff,
Cowans must include allegations setting forth a basis for this court’s jurisdiction.
c. The amended complaint must also contain a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing” that the Plaintiff “is entitled to relief” and a “demand for the relief
sought, which may include alternative and different types of relief.” Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)(2)-(3). See, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2008). Stated simply,
Cowans must clearly state who it is that he means to join as Defendants, and as to
each such person, state what they did or failed to do, when they did or failed to do
it, and the relief sought from that person as a result.
d. The Plaintiff is advised that the court allows parties representing themselves to
submit pleadings and motions that are hand-written, so long as any handwriting or

3

hand-printing is clear and legible. Additionally, each paragraph in the complaint
must be separately numbered.
2. The Plaintiff is advised that the failure to comply with this order may result in the
dismissal of this lawsuit for:
1) failure to comply with the order of the court;
2) lack of jurisdiction;
3) failure to state a claim; and/or
4) failure to prosecute the action.
3. The Plaintiff is instructed to acknowledge receipt of this order on the form provided
by the court and return to the Clerk to the Court as directed on the form of
acknowledgment. Again, failure to comply with this part of the order may result in
dismissal of this lawsuit for failure to comply with the order of the court and/or for
failure to prosecute this action.

SO ORDERED this the 6th day of November, 2015.

/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4