Morgan v. Conley et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motions for a more definite statement (#13, #15) are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file his amended complaint in accordance with this memorandum and order by February 7, 2017.( Amended/Supplemental Pleadings due by 2/7/2017.) Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 1/10/2017. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
JAVONTAY D. MORGAN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
ANDREW CONLEY, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:16cv251 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Plaintiff Javontay Morgan filed his petition in state court against police officers
and other officials associated with both Kennett, Missouri and Dunklin County, Missouri.
Plaintiff alleges that he was stopped for a traffic violation while driving his car and that
he was subsequently beaten and unlawfully arrested, held in jail, and then released two
months later when resisting-arrest charges were dropped. Plaintiff’s claims include
(Count I) Assault and Battery, (Count II) Wrongful Accusation/Malicious Prosecution,
(Count III) Civil Rights Violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (Count IV) Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress, and, “in the alternative,” (Count V) Negligent Infliction
of Emotional Distress1. The defendants have filed motions for a more definite statement
(#13, #16). Plaintiff has not responded to either motion.
Rule 12(e) states as follows:
Motion for More Definite Statement. A party may move for a more
definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed
by which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare
1

This count is titled as another (Count IV) for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, but the context suggests
plaintiff intends to bring a Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress in the alternative to the first Count IV.

1

a response. The motion must be made before filing responsive pleading
and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired…
Here, defendants seek an order requiring plaintiff to file an amended complaint setting
forth in separate counts each cause of action that plaintiff is asserting, the specific
defendant(s) against which it is being asserted, and a short and intelligible recitation of
the factual allegations allegedly supporting each cause of action against each of the
defendants. Defendants also ask that plaintiff set forth in separate counts each theory of
recovery that plaintiff asserts, the specific defendant(s) against which it is being asserted,
a short and intelligible statement identifying the specific defendant(s) on which the
liability is based, and a recitation of the factual allegations allegedly supporting each
theory of recovery.
The Court agrees that the plaintiff’s state-court petition presents the five counts in
a broad, ambiguous manner that makes it difficult if not impossible for the defendant
individuals and entities to respond. For example, Count I for assault and battery might
bring a claim under Missouri state law or, based on statements about “unlawful policies
and procedures of unconstitutional policing,” under federal law, and it is apparently
directed against all nine defendants even though only two defendants are alleged to have
personally engaged in any acts during the police stop. Count II is similarly ambiguous
such that defendants are unable to determine the nature and extent of the causes of action
and theories of recovery asserted against them. Although Count III refers to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, the allegations refer to damages recoverable under other federal statutes. Indeed,
Count III appears to contain at least 14 commingled individual and official capacity
claims against each of the defendants. The remaining two counts are similarly
ambiguous.
2

Again, the Court notes that plaintiff did not respond to the defendants’ motions in
any way. The Court finds that defendants are entitled to a more definite statement as
more fully described in the defendants’ motions. Plaintiff should also be mindful, in
crafting his amended complaint, of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which
requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motions for a more definite
statement (#13, #15) are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file his amended complaint in
accordance with this memorandum and order by February 7, 2017.
Dated this 10th day of January, 2017.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3