STOVALL v. GRAZIOLI et al
Filing
25
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 8/28/2018. (rtm, )
Case 1:16-cv-04839-RMB-KMW Document 25 Filed 08/29/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 341
[Dkt. Nos. 10, 11]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
FLAVIA STOVALL,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 16-4839 (RMB/KMW)
v.
JAMES GRAZIOLI, et al.,
OPINION
Defendants.
RENÉE MARIE BUMB, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court upon motions to dismiss
filed by defendants James Grazioli, Gilberto Velasquaz, Jeff
Weisemann, Luis Perez, and the State of New Jersey,
(collectively, the “State Defendants”),[Dkt. No. 10], and Louis
Narvaez (collectively with the State Defendants, the
“Defendants”), [Dkt. No. 11]. Both motions seek the dismissal of
Plaintiff Flavia Stovall’s (the “Plaintiff”) Complaint in its
entirety. The Defendants’ motions will be GRANTED, and
Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed, without prejudice.
Plaintiff Flavia Stovall is an African American woman who
has been employed by the New Jersey Judiciary, Camden Vicinage
(the “Camden Vicinage”) since December 1998 and who was 59 years
old at the time she filed this action. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 26, 33).
Case 1:16-cv-04839-RMB-KMW Document 25 Filed 08/29/18 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 342
Defendants in this action are her employer—the Camden Vicinage
of the New Jersey Superior Court—and several of Plaintiff’s
current and former supervisors. This action is the latest in a
long line of disputes between Plaintiff and her employers,
including the Camden Vicinage. Plaintiff has sued the Camden
Vicinage in state and federal Court on multiple occasions, and
has likewise filed numerous internal complaints and EEOC
complaints against it. (Id. ¶ 16-20).
Plaintiff, who at the time was proceeding pro se, filed her
Complaint in this matter on August 9, 2016, bringing claims for
(1) discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§
2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”); (2) discrimination and retaliation
in violation of N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1., et seq. (the “NJLAD”); (3)
“malicious acts”; (4) violation of the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment—brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(“Section 1983”); and (5) intentional infliction of emotional
distress.
Defendants filed the currently pending motions on October
11, 2016. On November 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed a letter
requesting an extension of her time to respond to Defendants’
motions so that she could secure representation. [Dkt. No. 13].
On February 23, 2017, the Court entered an Order affording
Plaintiff thirty days to secure counsel and administratively
terminating the Defendants’ motions to dismiss, among other
2
Case 1:16-cv-04839-RMB-KMW Document 25 Filed 08/29/18 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 343
things. [Dkt. No. 14]. On March 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
letter advising the Court that she had been unable to secure
counsel and requesting that the Court grant her an additional
sixty-day extension to prepare a pro se response to the pending
motions. [Dkt. No. 15].
Plaintiff filed her opposition to the motions on May 30,
2017. Less than a month later, on June 19, 2017, Clifford G.
Stewart entered his appearance as counsel on behalf of
Plaintiff. [Dkt. No. 20]. On September 26, 2017, the Court
reinstated the matter to its active docket and directed
Plaintiff’s counsel to advise whether he intended to supplement
Plaintiff’s pro se opposition to the currently pending motions.
[Dkt. No. 22]. Counsel for Plaintiff did not respond to the
Court’s Order.
Because Plaintiff was proceeding pro se when she drafted
the Complaint, the Court interprets it liberally. See Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972) (“[H]owever inartfully pleaded,” the “allegations of
a pro se complaint [are held] to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]”). This does not,
however, absolve Plaintiff of the need to adhere to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Fantone v. Latini, 780 F.3d
184, 193 (3d Cir. 2015), as amended (Mar. 24, 2015)(“a pro se
3
Case 1:16-cv-04839-RMB-KMW Document 25 Filed 08/29/18 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 344
complaint . . .
must be held to ‘less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers;’ . . . but we nonetheless
review the pleading to ensure that it has ‘sufficient factual
matter; accepted as true; to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on [its] face.’”). Among other things, a pro se
plaintiff’s complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8.
Rule 8(a) requires that a pleading contain “a short and
plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction” and
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2).
Each averment must be “simple, concise, and direct.” Id. at
8(d)(1). “Taken together,” Rules 8(a) and 8(d)(1) “underscore
the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal
pleading rules.” In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig., 90 F.3d 696,
702 (3d Cir. 1996)(citation omitted). The purpose of Rule 8 is
to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .
claim is
and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Thus, a complaint which “is so verbose,
confused and redundant that its true substance, if any, is well
disguised,” may be subject to dismissal. Hearns v. San
Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008)
4
Case 1:16-cv-04839-RMB-KMW Document 25 Filed 08/29/18 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 345
(quotation marks omitted); see also Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d
83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of 91 paragraphs—many of
which contain subparagraphs—of single spaced text. In it,
Plaintiff delves into minute details of dozens of interactions
she had with several Defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint reads
more like a daily log of her issues with management than a short
and plain statement of any grounds for legal relief. It is
unclear from Plaintiff’s excessively detailed Complaint what
conduct, and by which Defendants, she alleges is legally
actionable—i.e., discriminatory or retaliatory as opposed to
simply rude or unfair—and what conduct is simply provided as
background information. Moreover, Plaintiff refers often to her
former suits and EEOC complaints in a manner that makes it
unclear where this Complaint begins and those already concluded
matters end. In the end, Plaintiff’s Complaint is so
“excessively voluminous and unfocused” that it “defies any
attempt to meaningfully answer or plead to it.” Binsack v.
Lackawanna Cty. Prison, 438 F. App'x 158, 160 (3d Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, the Complaint will be dismissed, without prejudice.
Plaintiff will be afforded an opportunity to amend the
Complaint, this time with the assistance of counsel. 1 Any amended
1
The Court notes that in her opposition to Defendants’ motions,
Plaintiff concedes that her claims for “malicious acts” and
5
Case 1:16-cv-04839-RMB-KMW Document 25 Filed 08/29/18 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 346
complaint should comport with Rule 8’s requirement of “simple,
concise, and direct” averments and need not delve into such
explicit detail that it becomes overly burdensome for the Court
or Defendants to determine the grounds on which Plaintiff seeks
relief. Should she choose to amend and continue to pursue this
matter, Plaintiff should focus on the facts that she believes
give rise to a cause of action in this suit, specifically
identifying which Defendants are alleged to have taken which
acts and on what grounds those acts provide Plaintiff with an
entitlement to relief.
An Order consistent with this Opinion shall issue on this
date.
s/ Renee Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge
DATED: August 28, 2018
intentional infliction of emotional distress were improper.
Accordingly, the Court anticipates that those claims will not be
included in any amended complaint.
6
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?