Mello v. UNUM Corporation et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to file her EEOC/MCHR documents under seal [Doc. #8] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an in camera conference or a sealed status cal l [Doc. #11] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motions to stay the Memorandum and Order requiring her to amend her complaint [Doc. #13 and #17] are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall lift th e sealed notations placed upon Documents #10, #15, #16, #17, and #18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must file an amended complaint on the Court's civil complaint form within thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Ord er. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall not respond to plaintiff's complaint until her amended complaint has been reviewed by this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. Signed by Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins on 2/4/2014. (NCL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
UNUM CORPORATION, et al.,
No. 4:13CV2543 NCC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff=s various pending motions. After review of
the record in its entirety, the Court will order the plaintiff to submit her amended complaint on a
court-form and deny her remaining motions.
On December 20, 2013, plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Security Act of 1974 (AERISA@), 29 U.S.C. ' 1132. Specifically, in her complaint
against UNUM Corporation, Margaret Heylin and Nutter McClennen and Fish, LLC, plaintiff
purported to state a claim under ' 502(c) of the Act, asserting that defendants had failed to
comply with the duties owed to plaintiff under the terms of the Plan. Plaintiff also appeared to
be alleging violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (AADA@), 42 U.S.C. '' 12101,
et seq., as well as the Missouri Human Rights Act (AMHRA@), making vague and conclusory
claims for discrimination and retaliation. However, plaintiff=s pleading was difficult to discern,
as she had not properly identified her alleged disability, nor had she identified exactly what
provisions of the ADA or the MHRA under which she was proceeding.
Rather than pay the filing fee, plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915. After reviewing plaintiff=s financial affidavit, the Court granted
plaintiff=s motion.1 [Doc. #5]
When a plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis, a Court must review a complaint,
pre-service, for frivolousness, maliciousness, and for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. '
1915(e). After reviewing plaintiff=s complaint, the Court found the complaint deficient in several
respects and requested that plaintiff amend her pleading, in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8
and 10. The Court took care to point out several deficiencies in the pleading, and in that same
order, plaintiff=s request to file this action under seal was also considered and denied. Plaintiff
was given thirty (30) days to amend her complaint in compliance with the Court=s Memorandum
and Order. On January 21, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to file copies of her Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (AEEOC@) and Missouri Commission on Human Rights (AMCHR@)
filings under seal. On that same date, plaintiff filed a motion to stay the order to amend, as well
as a motion for an Ain camera@ conference call on Athe handling of confidential information.@ On
January 30, 2014, plaintiff motioned to vacate her consent to the undersigned and to
disqualify/recuse the Court from this action.2 Additionally, plaintiff again motioned to stay the
order to amend her complaint. For the following reasons, plaintiff=s motions will be denied.
When a plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court takes on the
responsibility for service of process for the plaintiff once a determination has been made as to the
viability of the action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915. It appears that plaintiff ignored or
disregarded this provision of ' 1915 and served defendants by waiver on her own. The Court
will order defendants not to answer the complaint until a complete review of the amended
pleading has been done under 28 U.S.C. '1915(e).
The Court denied plaintiff=s motion to vacate her consent and to disqualify/recuse by
Plaintiff=s Motions Relating to the Filing of the Amended Complaint
Plaintiff seeks a reconsideration of this Court=s Memorandum and Order requiring her to
file an amended complaint in this action. [Doc. #13 and #17] She asserts, in the myriad of
motions filed before this Court, that the Court has been Ahostile@ to her in making her pleadings
conform with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Rules 8 and 10. Plaintiff has
also argued, in a conclusory fashion, that her original complaint was clear enough to fall within
the confines of the Federal Rules and that she should not have to submit an amended pleading in
this matter. Plaintiff has also complained that this Court is biased and does not have the
authority to require plaintiff to amend her pleadings under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915.
Plaintiff's Original Complaint
The twelve-page complaint, which was typed and single-spaced, failed to set forth
plaintiff=s claims in a clear and cogent manner. Although the thrust of the complaint was that
plaintiff believed she had been impeded by defendants in investigating the insurance benefits due
and owing to her, it was uncertain as to the exact legal counts being brought by plaintiff against
each specific defendant. Moreover, it was difficult to tell exactly which factual occurrences
purportedly Amatched up@ with the allegations and legal assertions contained in the complaint.
Additionally, the complaint rambled and repeated some of the same allegations several times
over, which made it difficult to discern the separate legal counts in the pleading. As such, the
Court ordered plaintiff, in accordance with its authority under ' 1915 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and
10, to amend her pleading, setting forth the exact manner in which she needed to amend the
complaint to comply with the statute and the Federal Rules. Plaintiff was told that her failure to
comply with the Court's Memorandum and Order would result in a dismissal of her complaint,
without prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.
The authority under which the Court reviewed plaintiff's pleading is set forth below.
However, before delving into the technical aspects of the pleading deficiencies, the Court feels
compelled to state that on the basis of what is outlined below, it will deny plaintiff's motions for
relief from the Order to Amend.
28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action
is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989). To determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, the Court must engage in a two-step inquiry.
First, the Court must identify the
allegations in the complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51 (2009). These include Alegal conclusions@ and A[t]hreadbare recitals of
the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements.@ Id. at
1949. Second, the Court must determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim for
relief. Id. at 1950-51. This is a Acontext-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw
on its judicial experience and common sense.@ Id. at 1950. The plaintiff is required to plead
facts that show more than the Amere possibility of misconduct.@ Id. The Court must review the
factual allegations in the complaint Ato determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to
relief.@ Id. at 1951. When faced with alternative explanations for the alleged misconduct, the
Court may exercise its judgment in determining whether plaintiff=s proffered conclusion is the
most plausible or whether it is more likely that no misconduct occurred. Id. at 1950, 1951-52.
Plaintiff must understand that the "failure to state a claim" standard under ' 1915 review
is very similar to the "failure to state a claim" standard under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Claims on
frivolity review can and, sometimes, are dismissed under Iqbal.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain (1) Aa
short and plain statement of the grounds for the court=s jurisdiction,@ (2) Aa short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,@ and (3) Aa demand for the
relief sought.@ And Rule 10(b) requires that A[a]ll averments of claim or defense shall be made in
numbered paragraphs, the contents of each of which shall be limited as far as practicable to a
statement of a single set of circumstances.@ Because the complaint was rambling and repetitive,
it did not comply with either Rule 8(a) or Rule 10(b), and was found to be likely subject to
dismissal. See Micklus v. Greer, 705 F.2d 314, 317 n.3 (8th Cir. 1983). As such, the Court
provided plaintiff an opportunity to amend her pleading to comply with the Federal Rules.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require litigants to formulate their pleadings in an
organized and comprehensible manner. Even pro se litigants are obligated to abide by the
Federal Rules. See U.S. v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994); Boswell v. Honorable
Governor of Texas, 138 F.Supp.2d 782, 785 (N.D. Texas 2000). A tool this Court often uses for
pro se plaintiffs who have difficulty with organization and compliance with Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 8 and 10 is Local Rule 2.06(A).
Local Rule 2.06(A)
Pursuant to Local Rule 2.06(A), pro se plaintiffs are required to utilize a court-provided
form when drafting pleadings. As a result, the Court will order plaintiff to submit her amended
complaint on a court-provided civil complaint form. Thus, when plaintiff is filling out the form,
she must do her best to set forth, for each named defendant, a concise and cohesive claim, in a
separately numbered paragraph. She should separate each claim with a separate paragraph
number, and as far as practicable, her statements should be kept to a single set of circumstances.
This will assist plaintiff in keeping her claims concise and cohesive so that the Court is able to
ascertain the factual circumstances relating to each defendant named in plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff must take care to actually give notice of the claim being made. For example, if
plaintiff is making a claim for disability discrimination, she must give notice of the actual
disability she is claiming and provide factual allegations to support her statements rather than
just conclusory statements or "threadbare recitals of a cause of action."3 As noted above, her
failure to do so could be fatal to her claim for relief under Iqbal. 129 S. Ct. at 1950-51.
On the basis of the aforementioned, the Court will deny plaintiff's motions for
reconsideration of the Order requiring her to amend her pleading and again order plaintiff to
amend her complaint, albeit this time on the court-form. [Doc. #13 and #17] Plaintiff is warned
that the filing of the amended complaint replaces the original complaint, and claims that are not
re-alleged are deemed abandoned. See, e.g., In re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery
Fees Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005). If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint
The ADA define a "disability" as: (1) a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits on or more of the major life activities of an individual; (2) a record of such an
impairment; or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment. See 42 U.S.C. ' 12102(1).
on a court-form within thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, the Court will
dismiss this action, without prejudice.
Plaintiff's Motion for an "in camera" Conference
Plaintiff seeks an ex parte audience with this Court on her (previously denied) motion to
file the entire case under seal. [Doc. #11] It appears plaintiff also seeks to take up other issues
she would like to file under seal in the future. Plaintiff asserts that she would rather discuss the
matter with the Court than "submit documents to the Court [piecemeal] that may or may not be
allowed to be sealed."
Plaintiff alludes that "the file," so far unnamed and unidentified, will contain "highly
personal and confidential information." And she asserts in an entirely conclusory fashion that she
could be "stigmatized and subject to humiliation" if the motion is not granted. However, as this
Court is still unable to ascertain exactly what the nature of the pleadings are in this case, the
Court cannot acquiesce to plaintiff's request. As noted in the Court's prior Memorandum and
Order, it is not enough to state generally, that the case may relate to Apersonal issues@ or Ahealth
issues@ in order to be granted an ex parte conference with the Court or a sealed document within
the file. The plaintiff must provide the Court with some written, and very specific factual
information relating to her alleged need for such special treatment before it will be granted.
Plaintiff's motion for an "in camera" conference or sealed status call [Doc. #11] will be denied.
Plaintiff's Motion to File Her EEOC/MCHR Documents Under Seal
Last, the Court
will address plaintiff's motion to file her EEOC/MCHR documents under seal. [Doc. #8] In her
motion to file these documents under seal, plaintiff claims that the action will likely include
confidential information including medical and other information.
The Eighth Circuit has noted that Athe courts of this country recognize a general right to
inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.@ In re
Neal, 461 F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435
U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). Nonetheless, the Aright to inspect and copy judicial records is not
absolute.@ Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598; see Goff, 362 F.3d at 550. The Supreme Court has stated,
AEvery court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied
where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.
After reviewing the EEOC/MCHR documents, the Court finds that plaintiff has not yet
made the necessary showing as to why these documents should be filed under seal. In fact, these
documents are completely lacking in factual allegations or circumstances relating to any alleged
health condition or purported disability that would necessitate the Agood cause@ necessary for a
finding that it could be filed under seal in this Court. See Local Rule 83-13.05. The Court notes
that the documents filed by plaintiff do not even provide a glimpse as to her alleged "disability,"
except to discuss what plaintiff believed to be defendants' failure to change their website and/or
emails to a more readable format.
As such, the Court will deny plaintiff=s motion to file the EEOC/MCHR documents under
seal at this time. [Doc. #8] The Court will direct the Clerk to unseal the documents plaintiff has
filed under seal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to file her EEOC/MCHR documents
under seal [Doc. #8] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an in camera conference or a
sealed status call [Doc. #11] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motions to stay the Memorandum and
Order requiring her to amend her complaint [Doc. #13 and #17] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall lift the sealed notations
placed upon Documents #10, #15, #16, #17, and #18.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must file an amended complaint on the
Court's civil complaint form within thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint,
the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall not respond to plaintiff's complaint
until her amended complaint has been reviewed by this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915.
Dated this 4th day of February, 2014.
/s/ Noelle C. Collins
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?