Bradley v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 7

ORDER granting 5 Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement. The Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), on or before May 19, 2014. Specifically, the amende d complaint should explain in a brief, clear, and concise manner: (1) the grounds for this Courts jurisdiction; (2) sufficient facts that would give notice to the Defendant what the Plaintiff is claiming; (3) identify by title and date any decision the Plaintiff seeks review of; (4) facts related to the Plaintiffs claim that would show she is entitled to relief; and (5) the relief being sought. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley, Jr on April 17, 2014. (RLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
CATHY D. BRADLEY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

No. 2:14-CV-48
(JORDAN/SHIRLEY)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and Standing Order 13-02. This case came before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion for a
More Definite Statement [Doc. 5], filed on March 28, 2014.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), the Defendant asks the Court that the
Plaintiff provide a more definite statement concerning the following: (1) statement of the facts;
(2) the legal basis of her claims; (3) the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction; and (4) the specific
relief being sought.
As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not responded to the instant
motion and the time for doing so has expired. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d),
5(b)(2)(E). The Court may treat the lack of opposition during the time allowed under the rule as
acquiescence to the relief sought. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.2; see also Campbell v. McMinn
County, No. 1:10–CV–278, 2012 WL 369090, *7 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 3, 2012) (“Plaintiff’s failure
to respond effectively waives any objections that he may have had on this matter.”).
The Court further finds that the Complaint [Doc. 1] is so vague and ambiguous that the

1

Defendant will be unable to reasonably prepare a response. A complaint must contain “(1) a
short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . ; (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 . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply ‘give the defendant fair
notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Swierkiewicz v.
Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). If
the complaint “is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a
responsive pleading,” the Court may order the plaintiff to make a more definite statement before
the defendant responds. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
In the instant matter, the Plaintiff’s complaint reads as follows:

“Please consider

reviewing the U.F. decision of my prescription drug assistance, due to the exorbitant drug cost of
my medications. I have been very sick for 21 years and cannot afford the medicine to help me
keep walking.” [Doc 1 at 4]. The Complaint lacks specificity that would put the Defendant on
notice of what the Plaintiff’s claim is. It is unclear what the “U.F. decision” refers to, whether
the Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies prior to filing this action, and whether the
Court even has jurisdiction to hear the matter. Moreover, the relief being sought is likewise
vague and ambiguous. Accordingly, the Court finds that under Rule 12(e), the Defendant cannot
be expected to prepare a response to the Plaintiff’s Complaint.
The Court recognizes that the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and may not be well-versed
in the pleadings standards and rules of this Court. However, the Local Rules of the Eastern
District of Tennessee require that the Plaintiff comply with these rules, as any other party
presenting before the Court would be expected to do. Specifically, “[p]arties proceeding pro se

2

shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and [the
local] rules.” E.D. Tenn. L.R. 83.13.
Therefore, based upon the Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the instant motion and the
Complaint’s vague and ambiguous nature, the Court finds the Defendant’s Motion for a More
Definite Statement [Doc. 5] is well-taken, and it is GRANTED. The Plaintiff shall file an
amended complaint, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), on or before May
19, 2014. Specifically, the amended complaint should explain in a brief, clear, and concise
manner:
(1) the grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction;
(2) sufficient facts that would give notice to the Defendant what
the Plaintiff is claiming;
(3) identify by title and date any decision the Plaintiff seeks review
of;
(4) facts related to the Plaintiff’s claim that would show she is
entitled to relief; and
(5) the relief being sought.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
s/ C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

3