Allen v. City of Asheville et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying Defts' 14 Motion for More Definite Statement because Pltf has provided a more definite statement in his 21 Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 11/08/2017. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:17 cv 114 BRADFORD ALLEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF ASHEVILLE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement [# 14]. On April 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint [# 1]. On May 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [# 5], and Declaration in Support of Amended Complaint [# 5, Ex. # 1]. On June 16, 2017, Defendants each received a summons along with Plaintiff’s Complaint, Amended Complaint, and Declaration. On June 29, 2017, Defendants filed their Motion for a More Definite Statement [# 14]. Defendants asked that Plaintiff comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 8(d)(1), and 10(b). Defendants asked Plaintiff for: 8(a) a “short and plain statement of the claim,” 8(d)(1)that the statement contain allegations which are “simple, concise and direct,” and 10(b) that the claims should be in “numbered paragraphs,” which are “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” On October 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint [# 21]. As instructed by the Fourth Circuit, this Court construes pro se complaints liberally. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277–8 (4th Cir. 1985). After reviewing the Second Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff has complied with Defendants’ request for a more definite statement. Therefore, the Court DENYS Defendants’ motion [# 14] because Plaintiff has provided a more definite statement in his Second Amended Complaint. Signed: November 8, 2017

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?