Liberto et al v. Geisinger Hospital et al
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - 1. The defendants Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 22 ), is GRANTED. 2. On or before June 29, 2018, the plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint in this case, and serve this complaint upon the defendants. SEE MEMO & ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on May 30, 2018. (kjn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LUISA LIBERTO, et al.,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiffs
v.
GEISINGER HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants
Civil No. 4:17-CV-2320
( Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
MEMROANDUM AND ORDER
I.
Statement of Fact and of the Case
This pro se, in forma pauperis lawsuit comes before us for consideration of a
motion for more definite statement filed by the defendant, Geisinger Medical
Center. (Doc. 22.) This motion raises a well-founded concern that the plaintiffs’
allegations are insufficiently pleaded to allow for an intelligible response by the
defendants.
An examination of the plaintiffs’ complaint indicates that the plaintiffs are
attempting to bring some sort of employment discrimination lawsuit since they
caption this pleading as a “Complaint for Employment Discrimination.” (Doc. 1.)
What then follows, though, is a collection of workplace complaints by Luisa Liberto
relating to a wide array of matters such as access to office keys, requests to change
1
work cubicles, laptop computer access, and workplace ventilation and acoustics.
(Id.) In addition, the plaintiffs allege that Liberto’s son, Jeffrey Liberto, who
allegedly suffers from some developmental disability, was subjected to some form
of discrimination during his volunteer work at the hospital. (Id.)
While this much is clear, the manner in which the plaintiffs’ grievances are
expressed often defies understanding. Thus, it is often difficult to discern how
specific actions alleged by the plaintiffs are related to discrimination in violation of
federal law. It is also frequently difficult to discern precisely what type of
discrimination is being alleged by the plaintiffs since the compliant simply asserts in
a conclusory fashion discrimination based upon race, color and disability, but often
does not link alleged workplace disputes to any of these allegations of
discrimination. For example, the complaint sets forth the following narrative which
defies any ready response, with the plaintiffs alleging that the defendants were:
2
(Id.)
Presented with this form of complaint, the defendants have filed a motion
seeking a more definite statement of the plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Rule 12(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This motion is fully briefed by the parties and
is, therefore, ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, finding that the
plaintiffs’ pleadings are “so vague or ambiguous that the [defendants] cannot
reasonably prepare a response,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e), this motion for a more definite
statement, (Doc. 22) will be GRANTED.
II.
Discussion
In assessing the adequacy of a complaint, the Supreme Court of the United
States has advised trial courts that they must:
[B]egin by identifying pleadings that because they are no more than
conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be
supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere legal labels and
conclusions. Rather, a complaint must recite factual allegations sufficient to raise the
plaintiff’s claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation. As the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated when assessing the adequacy
3
of a complaint:
District courts should conduct a two-part analysis. First, the factual and
legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District Court must
accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may
disregard any legal conclusions. Second, a District Court must then
determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to
show that the plaintiff has a “plausible claim for relief
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009); see Santiago v.
Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675,
679). "In other words, a complaint must do more than allege the plaintiff's
entitlement to relief" and instead must “‘show’ such an entitlement with its facts.”
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009).
In addition to these pleading rules, a civil complaint must comply with the
requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which defines
what a complaint should say and provides that:
(a) A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain (1) a short and
plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the
court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought,
which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
Thus, it is well-settled that: “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require
that a complaint contain ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief,’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and that each averment be
4
‘concise, and direct,’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1).” Scibelli v. Lebanon County, 219 F.
App’x 221, 222 (3d Cir. 2007). When a complaint is “illegible or incomprehensible”,
id., or when a complaint “is not only of an unwieldy length, but it is also largely
unintelligible,” Stephanatos v. Cohen, 236 F.App’x 785, 787 (3d Cir. 2007), an
order dismissing a complaint under Rule 8 may be appropriate. See, e.g., Mincy v.
Klem, 303 F.App’x 106 (3d Cir. 2008); Rhett v. New Jersey State Superior Court,
260 F.App’x 513 (3d Cir. 2008); Stephanatos, 236 F.App’x at 787; Scibelli, 219 F.
App’x at 222; Bennett-Nelson v. La. Bd. of Regents, 431 F.3d 448, 450 n.1 (5th Cir.
2005). Likewise, dismissal under Rule 8 is also proper where a complaint “left the
defendants having to guess what of the many things discussed constituted [a cause of
action];” Binsack v. Lackawanna County Prison, 438 F. App’x 158 (3d Cir. 2011),
or when the complaint is so “rambling and unclear” as to defy response. Tillio v.
Spiess, 441 F.App’x 109 (3d Cir. 2011).
In a case such as this, where the plaintiffs’ complaint defies response, there is
also another vehicle for gaining an understanding of the plaintiffs’ claims, a motion
for a more definite statement made under Rule12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Rule 12(e) provides in part 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. The motion must
be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the
5
defects complained of and the details desired. If the court orders a more
definite statement and the order is not obeyed within 14 days after
notice of the order or within the time the court sets, the court may strike
the pleading or issue any other appropriate order.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
Here the defendants have requested that the Court order the plaintiffs to make
a more definite statement of his claims against these defendants, and we find that
this case aptly:
highlight[s] the particular usefulness of the Rule 12(e) motion for a
more definite statement. Under Rule 12(e), a defendant may move for a
more definite statement “[i]f a pleading ... is so vague or ambiguous
that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive
pleading.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). The Rule 12(e) “motion shall point out
the defects complained of and the details desired.” Id. When a
complaint fashioned under a notice pleading standard does not disclose
the facts underlying a plaintiff's claim for relief, the defendant cannot
reasonably be expected to frame a proper, fact-specific . . . defense. . . .
The Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement is perhaps the best
procedural tool available to the defendant to obtain the factual basis
underlying a plaintiff's claim for relief.
Thomas v. Independence Tp., 463 F.3d 285, 301 (3d Cir. 2006).
In our view, this case calls out for a more definite statement of the plaintiffs’
claims since in many respects the plaintiffs’ pleadings are “so vague or ambiguous
that the [defendants] cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for a more definite statement will be granted,
and the plaintiffs’ are ordered as follows:
6
III.
Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
The defendants’ Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 22), is
GRANTED.
2.
On or before June 29, 2018, the plaintiffs shall file an amended
complaint in this case, and serve this complaint upon the defendants.
3.
The plaintiffs’ amended complaint must recite factual allegations
which are sufficient to raise the plaintiffs’ claimed right to relief
beyond the level of mere speculation, contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), set forth in averments that are “concise, and
direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1).
4.
This complaint must be a new pleading which stands by itself as an
adequate complaint without reference to any other pleading already
filed. Young v. Keohane, 809 F. Supp. 1185, 1198 (M.D. Pa. 1992).
The complaint should set forth plaintiffs’ claims in short, concise and
plain statements, and in sequentially numbered paragraphs. It should
name proper defendants, specify the offending actions taken by a
particular defendant, be signed, and indicate the nature of the relief
7
sought. Further, the claims set forth in the complaint should arise out of
the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences, and they should contain a question of law or fact common
to all defendants.
5.
The Court further places the plaintiffs on notice that failure to comply
with this direction may result in the dismissal of this action pursuant to
Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also notifies
the plaintiffs that, as litigants who have sought leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, this complaint may also be subject to a screening
review by the Court to determine its legal sufficiency. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
SO ORDERED, this 30th day of May, 2018.
/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
8
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?