“A motion for a more definite statement ‘is granted only when the pleading is so vague that it is unreasonable to expect that a responsive pleading may or can be framed.’”
How later courts described this case
- “A motion for a more definite statement ‘is granted only when the pleading is so vague that it is unreasonable to expect that a responsive pleading may or can be framed.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MELODY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:20-cv-6424
v. Judge Edmund A. Sargus
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
OHIO DEPARTMENT
OF REHABILITATION &
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement
(Docs. 62, 67-1). Defendants filed the Motion (Doc. 62) but mistakenly left out Defendant Murray.
Thus, they filed a Motion to Correct (Docs. 66, 67) and filed the corrected Motion for More
Definite Statement (Doc. 67-1) which includes Defendant Murray. For the reasons that follow,
the Court GRANTS the Motions. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint on or
before February 25, 2022.
I. Background
Plaintiff Melody Williams, proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed this lawsuit
on December 16, 2020. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s complaint, totaling 105 pages, makes an array of
allegations against seventeen defendants. Her various allegations relate to her contention that the
water at the Ohio Reformatory for Women (“ORW”), where she is imprisoned, was contaminated
with an asbestos-containing mineral, vermiculite, and that water caused her harm. (See generally
id.). To date, the Court has dismissed claims against eight Defendants: Scotts Miracle Gro Inc.
(Doc. 60), Union County Commissioners (id.), McCartney (Doc. 64), Hall (id.), Heiser (id.),
Wiedecker (id.), Cresan (id.), and Leetze (id.). This leaves nine Defendants: Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation & Corrections (“ODRC”), ORW, City of Marysville Ohio (“Marysville”), United
States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Gardner, Eddy, Chambers-Smith, Ajeebodie,
and Murray. Two of these Defendants, Marysville and EPA, have not been served. The remaining
Defendants, ODRC, ORW, Gardner, Eddy, Chambers-Smith, Ajeebodie, and Murray (“moving
Defendants”), bring the Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 67-1). Plaintiff’s deadline to
respond to the Motion, January 20, 2022, has passed. Thus, this matter is now ripe for review.
II. Standard
While true that pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972), “basic pleading essentials” are still required, Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594
(6th Cir. 1989). Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to set
forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “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. Pro. 12(e); see also Lloyd v. Pokorny, No. 2:20-CV-2928, 2020 WL 5366109, at *6
(S.D. Ohio Sept. 8, 2020) (citing Sky Techs. Partners, LLC v. Midwest Rsch. Inst., 125 F. Supp.
2d 286, 298 (S.D. Ohio 2000) (“A motion for a more definite statement ‘is granted only when the
pleading is so vague that it is unreasonable to expect that a responsive pleading may or can be
framed.’”). Rule 12(e) motions are not favored by courts, see Lloyd, 2020 WL 5366109, at *6, but
are appropriate “[w]hen it is virtually impossible to know which factual allegations in a pleading
are intended to support which claims for legal relief . . . .” Muhammad v. Love's Travel Stops, No.
3:18-CV-341, 2019 WL 2210770, at *2 (S.D. Ohio May 22, 2019), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 3:18-CV-00341, 2019 WL 2422397 (S.D. Ohio June 10, 2019) (citing Bostic v.
Davis, 2017 WL 784814, at *2 (S.D. Ohio 2017)).
2
III. Discussion
Plaintiff’s complaint, regarding moving Defendants, seems to allege inadequate medical
care while incarcerated at ORW. (Doc. 44 at 14). Yet, the Court agrees with moving Defendants
that the Complaint lacks “specific allegations as they pertain to each defendant, times, places, and
other pertinent information” that would enable moving Defendants to respond. (Doc. 67-1 at 2).
Plaintiff’s complaint is sufficiently vague and ambiguous to justify an order requiring Plaintiff to
file an amended complaint.
In her amended complaint, the Plaintiff should do her best to comply with the following
rules. A complaint should 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, which may include relief in the alternative or
different types of relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)–(3). All claims must be set forth in “numbered paragraphs, each limited as
far as practicable to a single set of circumstances,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b), and “[e]ach allegation
must be simple, concise, and direct,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
To assist in complying with these rules, Plaintiff may want to use the Court’s Complaint
Form (Pro Se) which will be mailed to Plaintiff and can also be found on the Court’s website. See
http://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/ohio-southern-district-forms. In addition, Plaintiff may wish to
consult the Court’s pro se guide, which provides basic information regarding the preparation of a
complaint. See A Guide for Pro Se Civil Litigations: Representing Yourself in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Sec. III.1, available at
http://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/pro-se-handbook.
3
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Correct (Doc. 66,
67) and Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. 67-1). The Court TERMINATES Doc. 62.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint on or before February 25, 2022. The
Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a copy of the Complaint Form (Pro Se) and the
Pro Se Handbook.
Additionally, Defendants indicate that Defendant Ajeebodie’s name is spelled incorrectly.
(Doc. 66 at 1). The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to update the docket to reflect the correct
spelling, “Gbenro-Ajibade.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: January 26, 2022 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4