Millsaps v. Iredell County District Attorney's Office et al

Filing 97

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 93 Motion For A More Definite Statement Of Paragraph 82 In Deputy Ron Hillard's Document 92; and denying as moot 94 Motion For A Temporary Stay Of Proceeding On Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration Until Defendant Deputy Ron Hillard Has Provided A More Definite Statement Of Paragraph 82 In Document 92. Signed by US Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 5/8/2024. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(mek)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:22-CV-095-KDB-DCK
GLENN S. MILLSAPS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANNY LILES and RON HILLARD,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff’s “Motion For A More Definite
Statement Of Paragraph 82 In Deputy Ron Hillard’s Document 92” (Document No. 93) and
“Motion For A Temporary Stay Of Proceeding On Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration Until
Defendant Deputy Ron Hillard Has Provided A More Definite Statement Of Paragraph 82 In
Document 92” (Document No. 94) filed May 7, 2024.
These motions have been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motions
and the record, the undersigned will deny the motions.
By the instant motions, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant Ron Hillard to provide “a more
definite statement,” as to paragraph 82 in the “Answer Of Defendant Ron Hillard In His Individual
Capacity To Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint” (Document No. 92). (Document No. 93).
Paragraph 82 of Plaintiff’s “First Amended Complaint” (Document No. 3) states:
82. After Plaintiff was handcuffed Deputy Hillard went inside to
speak with Ms. Burris. Hillard wrote a report indicating he spoke to
Burris about the event to determine his decision of arrest. The video
shows Hillard entering the DA’s office approximately 2 two minutes
later after Plaintiff is in handcuffs.

(Document No. 3, p. 13).
Defendant Hillard’s “Answer…” states:
82. It is admitted that Hillard spoke with Ms. Burris before he
arrested Plaintiff and that Hillard spoke with Ms. Burris again after
arresting Plaintiff. It is further admitted that any report written by
Hillard speaks for itself and that the video referenced by Plaintiff
speaks for itself. Except as herein admitted, the allegations of
paragraph 82 are denied.
(Document No. 92, p. 10).
Plaintiff now asks the Court to compel Defendant Hillard “to explain in detail the time and
place he spoke to Defendant Kathleen Burris before he arrested Plaintiff and what was said
between Kathleen Burris and Deputy Hillard prior to the arrest.” (Document No. 93, p. 2)
(emphasis added). Plaintiff seems to doubt the veracity of Defendant’s response and is seeking
more detailed information. Id. Plaintiff does not, however, cite any legal authority to support this
request. Id.
The undersigned notes that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that: “[a] party
may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed
but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e).

As such, a Rule 12(e) motion for more definite statement addresses

Complaints, rather than Answers. Even if Rule 12(e) may be applied to an Answer, it does not
appear to be necessary here – the undersigned does not find Defendant’s response to be vague or
ambiguous.
A decision from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia is
instructive:
Rule 12(e) is “designed to strike at unintelligibility rather than
simple want of detail,” and thus the motion “will be granted only
when the complaint is so vague and ambiguous that the defendant
2

cannot frame a responsive pleading.” . . . Pugh, 2014 WL 2964415,
at *3 (quoting Frederick, 727 F. Supp. at 1020–21). To the extent
Plaintiffs might have pleaded more, that would reflect a “simple
want of detail” rather than “unintelligibility” in their amended
complaint. Put simply, the amended complaint does not fall within
the “quite small” class of pleadings that are appropriate subjects for
a Rule 12(e) motion. See 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
Miller, 5C Federal Practice & Procedure § 1376 (3d ed.).
Student A v. Liberty Univ., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 3d 901, 919 (W.D. Va. 2022)
Plaintiff’s demand for more detail is not appropriate through Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e), and the
information Plaintiff seeks is more likely to addressed through the discovery process in this
litigation.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned will respectfully deny the “Motion For A More
Definite Statement Of Paragraph 82…” (Document No. 93), and also deny Plaintiff’s related
“Motion For A Temporary Stay…” (Document No. 94).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion For A More Definite
Statement Of Paragraph 82 In Deputy Ron Hillard’s Document 92” (Document No. 93) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion For A Temporary Stay Of
Proceeding On Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration Until Defendant Deputy Ron Hillard Has
Provided A More Definite Statement Of Paragraph 82 In Document 92” (Document No. 94) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 8, 2024

3