Morgan v. Hawthorne Children's Psychiatric Hospital

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement [Doc. # 25 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that complies with th e Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by January 31, 2013. The amended complaint must bear the title Second Amended Complaint and must contain all of the claims that plaintiff wishes to assert in this case. Plaintiff is advised that she will not be perm itted to assert any claim that is not contained in the Second Amended Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for damages [Doc. # 29 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for access to discoverable information [Do c. # 30 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to compel [Doc. # 46 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties joint motion to appoint a pro bono neutral [Doc. # 35 ] is DENIED as moot. (Amended/Supplemental Pleadings due by 1/31/2013.). Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 1/10/13. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARGERE MORGAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
HAWTHORNE CHILDREN’S
PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:11-CV-1746 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, for a more definite statement. Plaintiff has
not responded to defendant’s motion. Also before the Court are plaintiff’s motions for
damages, access to discoverable information, and to compel discovery. Finally, the
parties have jointly moved for the appointment of a pro bono mediator.
Plaintiff claims that defendant, her former employer, failed to accommodate her
disability as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42
U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. Plaintiff alleges that defendant would not allow her to keep
her oxygen tank in the hospital unit in which she worked. After filing her complaint pro
se, plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a correction to the amended complaint.
These documents do not reallege the claims set forth in the original complaint.
Instead, they state that plaintiff wishes to include in her complaint “documentary
evidence issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC].”
Defendant has moved to dismiss, because plaintiff did not reallege her claims
in her amended complaint. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s claims should be deemed
abandoned, because an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint. In re

Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005). In the
alternative, defendant moves for a more definite statement to clarify plaintiff’s
amended complaint.
“Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, pro se litigants are not
excused from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law.” Burgs v. Sissel,
745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984). Construed liberally, plaintiff’s “amended complaint”
was meant to incorporate the allegations from the original complaint. Therefore, the
Court will deny defendant’s motion to dismiss.

In lieu of granting defendant’s

alternative motion for a more definite statement, the Court will require plaintiff to file
an amended complaint which fully alleges all of her claims and complies with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff has filed motions for “relief for damages,” “access to discoverable
information,” and a “motion on interrogatories” which the Court interprets as a motion
to compel. Plaintiff’s motion for damages is denied, because a demand for damages
should not be filed separately with the Court, but should be included in the corrected
amended complaint that plaintiff must file. Furthermore, plaintiff’s motion for “access
to discoverable information” is denied, because discovery requests should not be filed
with the Court. Finally, plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied, because as defendant
informed the Court, plaintiff filed her motion prematurely before attempting to confer
with defendant and before receiving defendant’s responses, which were sent in a
timely manner.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss, or, in the
alternative, for a more definite statement [Doc. # 25] is DENIED.

-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that
complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by January 31, 2013.

The

amended complaint must bear the title “Second Amended Complaint” and must
contain all of the claims that plaintiff wishes to assert in this case. Plaintiff is advised
that she will not be permitted to assert any claim that is not contained in the Second
Amended Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for damages [Doc. # 29] is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for access to discoverable
information [Doc. # 30] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel [Doc. # 46] is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion to appoint a pro bono
neutral [Doc. # 35] is DENIED as moot.

___________________________
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 10th day of January, 2013.

-3-