Bloomer v. Missouri Department of Corrections et al

Filing 65

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 63 MOTION for More Definite Statement filed by Plaintiff Calvin Bloomer. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for More Definite Statement (ECF No. 63) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 4/4/16. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

CALVIN BLOOMER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

IAN WALLACE, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:15CV174 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for More Definite Statement (ECF
No. 63). Defendants filed a response in opposition. Plaintiff did not file a reply brief, and the
time for doing so has expired. Upon review of the motion and response, the Court will deny
Plaintiffs Motion for More Definite Statement.
This case involves alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Defendants while Plaintiff
was detained at the Southeast Correctional Center in Charleston, Missouri. Plaintiff contends
that Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in preventing the sexual assault of Plaintiff by
another inmate. (First Am. Compl.

iii! 1, 47-66, ECF No. 18)

Plaintiff also alleges that

Defendant Ian Wallace failed to train employees with regard to prisoner classification and
prevention of violence. (Id. at iii! 67075)
Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, raising seven
affirmative defenses:
1) Plaintiffs claims against Defendant fail[] to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, and should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);

2) Plaintiffs federal law claims against Defendant are barred by Defendant' s
qualified immunity from suit because Defendant's conduct did not violate clearly

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would
have known;
3) Any claim against Defendant in his official capacity is barred pursuant to the
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution;
4) The conduct of Plaintiff caused or contributed to cause any damages to
Plaintiff;
5) Plaintiffs claims are barred by all applicable statute of limitations;
6) To the extent that Plaintiff has sued Defendant based upon his supervisory
position, respondeat superior is not a basis of liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and state law; and
7) Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
(Answer to First Am. Compl. pp. 11-12, ECF No. 51)
In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion for More Definite Statement under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(e), arguing that Defendants failed to include any facts to support their defenses. Plaintiff
contends that the pleading standard of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)
extends to affirmative defenses. Plaintiff claims that the affirmative defenses as pled render a
response and trial preparation impossible. Defendant, on the other hand, argues that the
plausibility pleading standard for claims does not apply to affirmative defenses.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e ), " [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." "Rule 12(e) is not designed to
remedy an alleged lack of detail, rather, the Rule is intended to serve as a means to remedy
unintelligible pleadings." Resolution Trust Corp. v. Fiala, 870 F. Supp. 962, 977 (E.D. Mo.
1994). Moreover, Rule 12(e) motions are generally disfavored, particularly when discovery will
clarify the issues." Hayden v. United States, No. 4: 12 CV 2030 DDN, 2013 WL 5291755 , at *2
(E.D. Mo. Sept. 19, 2013) (citations omitted).
2

The United States Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals have not
decided whether the plausibility standard for claims set forth in Twombly also applies to
affirmative defenses. CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Draper & Kramer Mortg. Corp., No. 4: 1OCVl784
FRB, 2012 WL 3984497, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 11, 2012). Courts in this District have reached
different conclusions regarding the applicable pleading standard for affirmative defenses under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c). Compare, e.g., Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Thomas, No.
4:11CV642 JCH, 2011WL3021205, at *2 (E.D. Mo. July 21, 2011) (holding that the Iqbal and

Twombly standards that there is some plausible, factual basis for the assertion apply to
affirmative defenses), with Draper & Kramar Mortg. Corp., 2012 WL 3984497, at *3 (denying
plaintiffs request to strike defendant' s affirmative defenses for failure to meet the heightened
pleading standards of Twombly and Iqbal); Hayden, 2013 WL 5291755, at *3 (finding that the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the ability of plaintiff to learn specific facts supporting the
affirmative defenses through discovery "dictate the conclusion that affirmative defenses ought
not be required to be initially pled according to the plausibility standard required of claims");

Baustian v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 4:13-cv-1423 SNLJ, 2013 WL 6243857, at *2 (agreeing with
courts that hold the plausibility standard does not apply to affirmative defenses and denying
without prejudice plaintiffs motion for a more definite statement).
This Court agrees with the most recent cases from this District holding that the Twombly
and Iqbal plausibility standard for claims does not apply to affirmative defenses. The court in

Hayden reasoned that, "' [g]iven ... the early procedural posture at which defendants commonly
must plead affirmative defenses, it is unreasonable to expect Defendant to plead affirmative
defenses with the particularity that the [plaintiffs] motion implies is necessary.' " Hayden, 2013
WL 5291755, at *3 (quoting US. ex rel. Monahan v. Robert Wood Johnson Univ. Hosp. at

3

Hamilton, No. 02-5702 (JAG), 2009 WL 4576097, at *5 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2009)). In addition,
Plaintiff is able to learn the facts supporting Defendants' affirmative defenses through discovery.

Id. Thus, the Court finds that Defendants have adequately pled their affirmative defenses in
accordance with Rule 8, and the Court will deny Plaintiffs motion.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for More Definite Statement (ECF
No. 63) is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 4th day of April, 2016.

. oL/tifh

~TE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4