Toliver v. New York City Department of Corrections et al

Filing 85

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth on this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Defendants' request for a more definite statement is DENIED. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to file their Answer by 6/17/2011. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 5/31/2011) (ab)

· USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECfRONICALLY FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DOC #: _ . _ - - - ­
DATE FILED: !:--"$ J- I (

MICHEL TOLIVER,
MEMORA~DUM

Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

- against10 Civ. 0822 (RJS) (RLE)
N.Y.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

RONALD L. ELLIS, United States :Magistrate Judge
Pro Se Plaintiff Michael Toliver filed this case on February 3,2010, alleging that he was

assaulted by correctional officers. On July 13, 2010, Toliver filed an Amended Complaint to includc
allegations regarding a second assault that he alleges occurred in retaliation for the filing of this lawsuit.
On October 21,2010, in lieu of serving an Answer, Defendants, in a letter motion, requested that this
Court revoke Toliver's inforrna pauperis status. That request was denied on December 21,2010, and a
motion for reconsideration of that decision was denied on January 7, 2011. On March 31, 2011 , Toliver
moved to consolidate this case with another case also pending in this District. That motion was denied
on April 20, 2011, and this Court directed Defendants to enter an Answer by May 20, 2011. In a letter
dated May 24,2011 (that contains no explanation for its tardiness), Defendants now request that this
Court order Toliver to file a more definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). For the reasons
below, Defendants' request is DENIED.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) allows a party to move for a more definite statement when "a pleading to
which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be
required to frame a responsive pleading." "A motion pursuant to Rule 12(e) should not be granted
'unless the complaint is so excessively vague and ambiguous as to be unintelligible and as to prejudice
the deiendant seriously in attempting to answer it. '" Caraveo v. Nielsen Nfedia Research, Inc., No. 0]

Civ. 9609,2002 WL 530993, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2002) (quoting Boothe v. TRW Credit Data, 523
F.Supp. 631,635 (S.D.N.Y.1981 )). "Motions for a more definite statement are generally disfavored
because of their dilatory effect." In re lv1ethyl Tertiwy Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability

Litigation, No. Master File 1:00-189, MDL 1358,2005 WL 1500893, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2005).
This concern is particularly relevant in this case, where more than ten months have passed since the
filing of the Amended Complaint and no responsive pleading has been entered.
Motions for a more definite statement have been granted in this District where plaintiffs failed to
allege the specific tacts giving rise to a claim, see, e.g., Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Micromuse, Inc.,
No. 04 Civ. 3090,2004 WL 2346152, at *4-*6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19,2004) (complaint alleged that
Defendant had infringed on Plaintiffs patents, but did not describe specific infringing acts); failed to
make clear which defendants were responsible for specific acts alleged, see, e.g., Caraveo v. Nielsen

Media Research, Inc., No. 01 Civ. 9609, 2002 WL 530993, at *2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8,2002); or failed
to allege facts necessary to make out a claim. See, e.g., Stewart v. Crosswalks Television Network, No.
98 CV 7316, 2002 WL 265162, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25,2002) (complaint alleging employment
discrimination failed to specify race, gender, or age of individual plaintiffs). Toliver's Amended
Complaint is lengthy, disjointed, and consists primarily of copies of other documents, including the
original Complaint in this case and various grievances that Toliver has filed with the Department of
Corrections, but it contains none of the sort of failures detailed above. I A review of the Amended
Complaint, in fact, reveals two alleged physical assaults, one on December 15,2009, and the second on
May 20,2010 (Am. Compi. at 2), and one alleged instance of verbal threats, on January 24,2010 (Am.

IThe Amended Complaint also is not written in numbered paragraphs, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. lOCb).
This alone, however, does not constitute grounds for granting a motion for a more definite statement. See, e.g.,
Dunlop-McCullen v. Local J-S RWDSV-AFL-CIO, No. 94 Civ. 1254, 1994 WL 478495, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. I,
1994).

2

Compi. at 13), that form the basis for Toliver's claims. The Defendants involved in each alleged
incident are clearly named and their roles clearly described, and Toliver also includes an explanation of
why he believes he has a basis to sue the other Defendants not directly involved in the alleged incidents.
(Am. Comp!.,

1.)

Those of us who spend our days within the confines of the legal profession become quickly
accustomed to prescribed modes of discourse. This Court, which maintains a substantial pro ."Ie docket,
sympathizes with the difficulties inherent in being confronted with a legal filing that falls outside of
these familiar patterns. The Court, however, has confidence in the abilities of Defendants' counsel to
interpret the Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Defendants' request for a more definite statement is

DENIED. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to file their Answer by June 17,2011.
SO ORDERED this 31st day of May 2011
New York, New York
The Honorable Ronald L. Ellis
United States Magistrate Judge

3