Woolverton v. City of Wardell et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Western Surety Company Without Prejudice (Doc. 25) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Western Surety Company is dismissed without prejudice from this action. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Count I as to Tommy Greenwell, Only, Without Prejudice (Doc. 29) is granted.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Tommy Greenwells Motion to DismissCount I (Doc. 17) is denied as moot. IT IS FURTH ER ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motions for More Definite Statement of Defendants Rudd, City of Wardell, Holloway, and Redden (Docs. 14, 26, 31) are granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint as to Defendants Greenwell, Rudd, City of Wardell, Holloway, and Redden no later than February 28, 2018 ( Amended/Supplemental Pleadings due by 2/28/2018.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Abbie Crites-Leoni on 1/29/18. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
LEE WOOLVERTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF WARDELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:17CV170 ACL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Lee Woolverton filed this action against Defendants City of Wardell, Casey
Redden, Chris Rudd, Deputy Edward Holloway, Sheriff Tommy Greenwell, and Western Surety
Company, alleging violations of his constitutional rights resulting from an April 2016 traffic
stop. Presently pending before the Court are four separate motions to dismiss filed by various
Defendants (Docs. 14, 17, 26, 31), as well as two motions to dismiss filed by Plaintiff (Docs. 25,
29).
I.

Background
In his Complaint, Plaintiff sets forth three counts: Count I (unlabeled), Count II

“Negligence Under Bond,” and Count III “Negligence.” (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff states that
Defendants Redden and Rudd were police officers employed by the City of Wardell, Missouri, at
all relevant times; Defendant Holloway was employed as Deputy Sheriff of Pemiscot County,
Missouri; and Defendant Greenwell was Sheriff of Pemiscot County, Missouri. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant Western Surety Company issued a bond for the guarantee of the lawful
performance of Sheriff Greenwell’s duties as sheriff.
On November 27, 2017, Defendants City of Wardell and Officer Chris Rudd filed a

1

Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement. (Doc. 14.)
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff fails to state a plausible '
1983 claim against Defendant Rudd; (2) a negligence claim against Defendant Rudd in his
individual capacity is barred by the official immunity doctrine; (3) Plaintiff fails to state a ' 1983
claim against the City of Wardell; (4) Plaintiff fails to state a negligence claim against the City of
Wardell; and (5) Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comply with the requirements of Rules 8 and 10 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants request in the alternative that the Court order
Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement. Plaintiff has filed a Response in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion. (Doc. 35.)
Defendant Tommy Greenwell filed a Motion to Dismiss Count I pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the same date. (Doc. 17.) Defendant Greenwell argues that
Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because
there are no allegations of individual involvement by Sheriff Greenwell or allegations of any
unconstitutional policy or custom. Defendant Greenwell filed an Answer with regard to Counts
II and III. (Doc. 16.)
In Response to Defendant Greenwell’s Motion, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Count
I Only as to Tommy Greenwell Without Prejudice. (Doc. 29.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion to
Dismiss Western Surety Company Without Prejudice, in which he states that Western Surety is
not a necessary party to these proceedings. (Doc. 25.) Plaintiff’s Motions to Dismiss will be
granted.
On December 6, 2017, Defendant Holloway filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the

2

alternative, a Motion for More Definite Statement. (Doc. 26.) Defendant argues that Count I1 of
the Complaint fails to state a claim as to Defendant Holloway because it does not assert a
specific cause of action against Defendant Holloway and fails to state a plausible ' 1983 claim or
negligence claim. Defendant Holloway contends that the allegations in Count I are
incomprehensible, and requests in the alternative that Plaintiff be required to plead more
specifically a factual basis for his claims. Plaintiff has filed a Response in Opposition to
Defendant Holloway’s Motion. (Doc. 33.)
Finally, on December 14, 2017, Defendant Redden filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the
alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement. (Doc. 31.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff fails to
state a plausible ' 1983 claim against Redden; (2) a negligence claim against Redden in his
individual capacity is barred by the doctrine of official immunity; and (3) Plaintiff’s Complaint
fails to comply with the requirements of Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Defendant Redden requests in the alternative that the Court order Plaintiff to provide a more
definite statement. Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s Motion. (Doc. 34.)
II.

Discussion
Common to all Defendants’ motions to dismiss is the claim that Count I of Plaintiff’s

Complaint fails to set forth the legal basis of relief and is incomprehensible. Although Plaintiff
opposes the motions to dismiss of Defendants Wardell, Redden, Rudd, and Holloway, he does
not directly address Defendants’ alternative request that Plaintiff be directed to plead more
specifically the basis for his claims.

1

Counts II and III do not pertain to Defendant Holloway.
3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a complaint to contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 12(e) allows a party to
move for a more definite statement of a pleading that is “so vague or ambiguous that the party
cannot reasonably prepare a response.” “A motion for more definite statement is proper when a
party is unable to determine issues he must meet ...” Tinder v. Lewis Cty Nursing Home Dist.,
207 F. Supp.2d 951, 959 (E.D. Mo. 2001). Motions for a more definite statement are appropriate
when a complaint is unintelligible rather than lacking in detail. Id. It is not a substitute for
discovery. Id. “[D]ismissal of a plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 should
be with leave to amend.” Michaelis v. Nebraska State Bar Ass’n, 717 F.2d 437, 439 (8th Cir.
1983).
Plaintiff sets forth the following allegations in paragraph 15 of the unlabeled Count I of
his Complaint:
That on or about Monday, April 11, 2016 approximately 10:10 p.m. Police Chief
Redden stopped the Plaintiff for allegedly having loud music and a light out
(however the lights were actually working). That Defendant Redden had
observed the Plaintiff driving earlier and did nothing to stop the Plaintiff. During
the stop and before the search of the vehicle Defendant Rudd walked to the
Plaintiff’s back passenger car door, opened the door and told the Plaintiff that he
could ‘kick his ass.’ He further called the Plaintiff derogatory names such as
‘douche bag.’ Then the Plaintiff’s car was unreasonably searched by a drug dog
and was later unreasonably searched by the Defendants and that no contraband or
other illegal items were found. But during the stop, investigation, and arrest, the
Defendants slammed the Plaintiff’s head into the Defendant’s SUV. Next a choke
hold was applied on the Plaintiff by Defendant Rudd or the Defendant Redden
and a scissor move was applied to Plaintiff’s leg by Defendant Redden or Chief
Rudd at the direction and assistance of the Chief of Police. This was a
coordinated attack by the Defendants Redden and Rudd. As a direct result of the
scissor move, the Plaintiff’s leg snapped and was broken because of the fulcrum
created in the scissor move. The Plaintiff told the Defendants that his leg was
broken but the Defendants did not believe him and hauled him roughly into their
police vehicle. At this time the Plaintiff observed Defendant Deputy Holloway at
the scene and that Deputy Holloway instructed Defendants Redden and Rudd on
how to pick up the Plaintiff and place him in the Defendants’ SUV. While being
moved the Plaintiff asked Defendants Redden and Rudd to stop because his leg
4

was broken and hurting. At that time Defendant Holloway told the Plaintiff that
he was going to ‘kick his ass.’ The Defendants then transported the Plaintiff to
the Hayti hospital. The Hayti hospital was unable to help the Plaintiff, and the
Plaintiff was then transported by his father to a hospital in Cape Girardeau,
Missouri and then to Barnes hospital in St. Louis, Missouri. That at the time the
Defendants delivered the Plaintiff to the Hayti hospital, they told the Hayti
hospital that the treatment was on the Plaintiff’s own and was not their
responsibility. That these actions occurred while the Plaintiff was handcuffed.
That at some point in time during the abusive actions of Redden, Rudd and
Deputy Holloway arrived at the scene and either assisted in the abusive conduct
or did nothing to stop the conduct.
(Doc. 1 at p. 3-5.)
The Court will grant the motions to dismiss of Defendants Rudd, City of Wardell,
Holloway, and Redden, and will allow Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint. The style of
Plaintiff’s Complaint, as demonstrated by the above-cited paragraph, would make “an orderly
trial impossible.” Michaelis, 717 F.2d at 439. Further, Plaintiff’s Complaint repeatedly uses the
term “Defendants” and does not specify the Defendant to which each count applies. This
unfairly burdens the Defendants and the Court because it shifts “the burden of identifying the
plaintiff’s genuine claims and determining which of those claims might have legal support.”
Gurman v. Metro Housing & Redevelopment Auth., 842 F. Supp.2d 1151, 1153 (D. Minn. 2011).
“It is the plaintiff’s burden under both Rule 8 and Rule 11, to reasonably investigate their claims,
to research the relevant law, to plead only viable claims, and to plead those claims concisely and
clearly, so that a defendant can readily respond to them and a court can readily resolve them.”
Id.
The Court will allow Plaintiff 30 days from the date of this Order to file an Amended
Complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Plaintiff must
set out a short and plain statement clearly setting out his claims and showing that he is entitled to
relief, and should specify the Defendants to which each count applies.

5

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Western Surety
Company Without Prejudice (Doc. 25) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Western Surety Company is dismissed
without prejudice from this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Count I as to Tommy
Greenwell, Only, Without Prejudice (Doc. 29) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Tommy Greenwell’s Motion to Dismiss
Count I (Doc. 17) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss, or in the Alternative,
Motions for More Definite Statement of Defendants Rudd, City of Wardell, Holloway, and
Redden (Docs. 14, 26, 31) are granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint as to
Defendants Greenwell, Rudd, City of Wardell, Holloway, and Redden no later than February
28, 2018.
/s/ Abbie Crites-Leoni
ABBIE CRITES-LEONI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 29th day of January, 2018.

6