Davis v. City of Memphis Fire Department et al

Filing 45

ORDER granting 35 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 44 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 25 Motion to Dismiss; denying 25 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 26 Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 5/31/12. (Anderson, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
REGINALD ALAN DAVIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
No. 11-3076-STA-cgc
)
CITY OF MEMPHIS FIRE
)
DEPARTMENT; MAYOR A.C.
)
WHARTON; ALVIN BENSON,
)
individually and in his official capacity )
as Director of the Fire Department;
)
SANDRA RICHARDS, individually and )
in her official capacity; and DARYL
)
PAYTON, individually and in his
)
official capacity,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT,
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court are Defendants Alvin Benson and Daryle Payton’s ( “the Individual
Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (D.E. # 25), filed on February 23, 2012 and Motion for a More
Definite Statement (D.E. # 26), filed on February 23, 2012; Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the
Complaint (D.E. # 35), filed on March 30, 2012; and Defendants the City of Memphis, Mayor
A.C. Wharton, and all remaining Defendants in their official capacities’ (“Defendants”) Motion
to Dismiss (D.E. # 44), filed on April 26, 2012. The Individual Defendants responded to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (D.E. # 37) on April 3, 2012. For the following
1

reasons, the Motions to Dismiss are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, the Individual
Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend the Complaint is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Despite its relative youth, this case has already developed a complex procedural history.
Plaintiff first filed his verified Complaint appearing to allege claims of race and gender
discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982,
1983, and 1985, common law assault, the Tennessee Public Protection Act, and violations of
equal protection and due process on December 10, 2011. (D.E. # 1.) Plaintiff filed his First
Amended Complaint on December 13, 2011, and he filed his Second Amended Complaint on
December 22, 2011. (D.E. # 4, 15.) Defendants filed an Answer on January 24, 2012. (D.E. #
20.) The same day that Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment against the Individual
Defendants, they filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
(“Rule 12(b)(6)”) and a Motion for a More Definite Statement under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(e) (“Rule 12(e)”) on February 23, 2012. (D.E. # 25-26.) After the Court denied
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (D.E. # 24), Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the
Complaint on March 14, 2012 (D.E. # 30), which the Court denied for failure to consult under
Local Rule 7.2 and for failing to attach a proposed amended complaint. (D.E. # 31.) Plaintiff
then refiled his Motion after consulting with Defendants on March 30, 2012, and she attached a
copy of his Proposed Third Amended Complaint (“Third Amended Complaint”). (D.E. # 35.)
After the Individual Defendants filed their Response to this Motion (D.E. # 37), Plaintiff
filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent
2

Injunction (D.E. # 40) on April 25, 2012, to prohibit the City of Memphis from holding an
administrative hearing at which Plaintiff could have faced termination. The Court denied
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order that same day (D.E. # 43), but it did not
reach Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. Neither of these Motions
are currently set for hearing. Finally, Defendants filed the second Motion to Dismiss currently
before the Court.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
Motion to Amend the Complaint
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) (“Rule 15(a)”) governs amendments of
pleadings before trial as a matter of course.1 It provides that “[a] party may amend its pleading
once as a matter of course within [either twenty-one] days after serving it or, if the pleading is
one to which a responsive pleading is required, [twenty-one] days after service of a responsive
pleading or [twenty-one] days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) [or] (e).”2 In other
instances, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a pleading may be amended “only by
leave of court . . . and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.”3 A motion to amend a
complaint should not be denied unless there is evidence of undue delay, bad faith, undue
prejudice to the nonmovant, or futility.4
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) (emphasis added).

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A-B).

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).

4

Ziegler v. IBP Hog Market, Inc., 249 F.3d 509, 519 (6th Cir. 2001).
3

A defendant may move to dismiss a claim for “failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted” under Rule 12(b)(6). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must
treat all of the well-pled factual allegations of the complaint as true, construe those allegations in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
the plaintiff.5 However, legal conclusions “masquerading as factual allegations” or unwarranted
factual inferences including “conclusory allegations” need not be accepted as true.6 To avoid
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), “the complaint must contain either direct or inferential
allegations” with respect to all material elements of the claim.7
Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint need only contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]”8 Although
this standard does not require “detailed factual allegations,” it does require more than “labels and
conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”9 To survive a
motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege facts that, if accepted as true, are sufficient “to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level” and to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

5

Jones v. City of Cincinnati, 521 F.3d 555, 559 (6th Cir. 2007).

6

Id.

7

Eidson v. State of Tenn. Dep’t of Children’s Servs., 510 F.3d 631, 634 (6th Cir.

8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

2007).

9

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684-85 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir.
2009).
4

face.”10 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”11
Motion for a More Definite Statement
Rule 12(e) provides 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.”12 Motions under Rule 12(e) “must be made before filing a
responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired.”13
Notably, “[i]f the court orders a more definite statement and the order is not obeyed within
[fourteen] days after notice of the order . . . , the court may strike the pleading or issue any other
appropriate order.”14
Federal courts generally disfavor motions for more definite statements, and in light of
Rule 8(a)(2)’s notice pleading standards and the opportunity for extensive pretrial discovery,
courts rarely grant such motions.15 Rule 12(e) motions should not be granted unless the
complaint is “so excessively vague and ambiguous as to be unintelligible and as to prejudice the

10

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

11

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

12

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).

13

Id. Here, the Individual Defendants did not form part of the group of Defendants
which filed the Answer at D.E. # 20. Therefore, the Motion for a More Definite Statement is
properly before the Court.
14

Id.

15

EEOC v. FPM Grp. Ltd., 657 F. Supp. 2d 957, 966 (E.D. Tenn. 2009); Fed. Ins.
Co. v. Webne, 513 F. Supp. 2d 921, 924 (N.D. Ohio 2007).
5

defendant seriously in attempting to answer it.”16 Generally, if the complaint meets the
requirements of Rule 8(a), the motion for a more definite statement should be denied.17
ANALYSIS
Motion for a More Definite Statement and Motion to Amend the Complaint
The Court will begin by determining whether Plaintiff can amend his Complaint a third
time as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1). Although Plaintiff initially filed his Motion to
Amend the Complaint within twenty-one days of the Individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,
the Court finds that Plaintiff is constrained by his prior amendments. Plaintiff has already
amended the Complaint twice as a matter of course, both times before any defendant filed an
answer or a motion to dismiss. Thus, Plaintiff has already amended his Complaint at least once
under Rule 15(a)(1), and he cannot rely on that portion of Rule 15 again. Accordingly, the Court
turns to Rule 15(a)(2) and the Individual Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement.
In their Motion, the Individual Defendants argue that “it is impossible to discern which
Defendants the Plaintiff has brought his claims against because the Plaintiff asserts the claims
generally against the “Defendants.”18 The Individual Defendants further assert that
“[c]omplicating . . . the analysis of the factual basis for the claims is the ‘stream-ofconsciousness accusations’ which the Plaintiff used in preparing the [Second] Amended

16

FPM Grp., 657 F. Supp. 2d at 966.

17

Id. (citing Shirk v. Fifth Third Bankcorp, No. 05-cv-049, 2008 WL 4449024, at *8
(S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2008)).
18

(Individual Defs.’ Mot., D.E. # 26, at 1.)
6

Complaint and in describing the particular claims.”19 Furthermore, the Individual Defendants
noted that the Second Amended Complaint fails to conform to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
10(b)’s (“Rule 10(b)”) requirements.20 Although the Certificate of Consultation indicates that
Plaintiff opposed the Motion, Plaintiff never filed a Response in opposition.21
The Court finds that although the Second Amended Complaint is full of factual
allegations, it fails to comply with Rule 10(b). Rule 10(b), which governs the form of pleadings,
provides that “[a] party must state its claims . . . in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as
practicable to a single set of circumstances. . . . If doing so would promote clarity, each claim
founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count . . . .”22
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint does not identify which Defendants violated which of
Plaintiff’s rights. The original, First, and Second Amended Complaints are somewhat verbose,
grammatically incorrect, and hard to understand because Plaintiff does not identify which actions
apply to which Count and which Defendants performed each action underlying each Count.
Furthermore, some Counts contain more than one ground or claim for relief, which is improper
and violates Rule 10(b). Moreover, requiring any of the Defendants to prepare a responsive
pleading to the Second Amended Complaint would severely prejudice Defendants. Each
paragraph of the Second Amended Complaint is full of factual allegations, some of them vague
and ambiguous, but all of them requiring a response. Indeed, one paragraph is at least one full

19

(Id.)

20

(Id. at 2.)

21

(Id.)

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
7

page of text. Defendants cannot reasonably be expected to respond to such unclear, lengthy
allegations.
Therefore, the Court will GRANT the Individual Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite
Statement, and it also GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint. However, the
proposed Third Amended Complaint attached to Plaintiff’s Motion will not do. Plaintiff is
hereby required to redraft his Third Amended Complaint to ensure that it complies with the
requirements of Rule 10(b) and Rule 8. Plaintiff is warned that the Court will strictly enforce the
pleading requirements as relates to these Rules. Plaintiff shall refile his Third Amended
Complaint as a separate docket entry within fourteen days of entry of this Order.
Motions to Dismiss
It is well-settled than an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and
renders the initial pleading a nullity.23 Courts in this Circuit and others will deny motions to
dismiss a complaint as moot after a plaintiff subsequently files an amended complaint.24 Here,
both Motions to Dismiss currently before the Court are directed toward Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint at D.E. # 20. When Plaintiff files his Third Amended Complaint, the
Second Amended Complaint will be superseded, thereby mooting all of the pending Motions to
Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court will now DENY them without prejudice to re-file. Once

23

B&H Medical, L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc., 526 F.3d 257, 258 (6th Cir. 2008).

24

See, e.g., Pinks v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc., 83 Fed. App’x. 90 (6th Cir. 2003);
McCloy v. Corr. Med. Servs., No. 07-13839, 2009 WL 190035, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 27, 2009);
Williams v. Kelly, No. 07-10999, 2007 WL 2951303, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 10, 2007); see also
Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001); Milton v. Chicago Park Dist.,
No. 97-3166, 1998 WL 516805, at *1 (7th Cir. July 29, 1998); Wiser v. ASI-Agrieserve, Inc., No.
09-cv-91E, 2009 WL 1422060, at *1 (W.D. Pa. May 20, 2009).
8

Plaintiff files the Third Amended Complaint, Defendants shall have fourteen days from the date
of its filing to file a responsive pleading or other Motions as they see fit.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, the Individual Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement is GRANTED,
and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint is GRANTED.
The Court understands that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
remains pending. While it recognizes that the requested extraordinary relief is still outstanding,
in light of the forthcoming filing of the Third Amended Complaint, the Court will wait to set the
Motion for a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction for hearing until it can review the Third
Amended Complaint to determine whether a hearing is required.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: May 31st, 2012.

9