The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
JOHN DAVID CAMPBELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No.: 3:23-CV-274-TAV-JEM
)
MILLENNIA HOUSING )
MANAGEMENT, LTD., )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint, or, in the Alternative, Second Motion for More Definite Statement
[Doc. 14]. Plaintiff has responded in opposition [Doc. 17]. Defendant has not replied, and
the time for doing so has expired. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1(a). Accordingly, this matter is
ripe for review. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss
plaintiff’s amended complaint [Doc. 14].
I. BACKGROUND
On August 8, 2023, defendant removed this case to this Court from the Knox County
Circuit Court [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff’s original complaint alleged: “The aggregious [sic] and
attrotious [sic] nature of crimes, violations, and contractual and agreement breaches fall in
the areas of Targeted Harassment[,] Civil Rights Violations[,] Americans with Disabilities
Act Violations[,] Lease Violations[, and] Fraud” [Doc. 1-1, p. 4]. Further, plaintiff alleged
that the “crimes and violations were committed between 5/07/2021 – Present” [Id.].
Plaintiff also requested from defendant “all video surveillance to be legally obtained as
documented proof of occurrences” from May 7, 2021, to July 7, 2021 [Id.].
On August 11, 2023, defendant filed a Motion for More Definite Statement [Doc.
6], arguing that plaintiff’s complaint made “one sweeping general statement followed by
five causes of action without any further explanation” [Doc. 7, p. 3]. In doing so, defendant
argued that the complaint did not “clearly state facts that would enable [defendant] to
knowledgably draft a responsive pleading” and requested the Court to order plaintiff to file
an amended complaint “that adequately articulates [plaintiff’s] factual allegations, causes
of action, and claimed damages” [Id.].
This Court granted defendant’s motion [Doc. 6], finding plaintiff’s complaint to be
insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because plaintiff failed to set forth
facts for the claims he alleged, and plaintiff did not articulate his claimed damages [Doc.
10, p. 2]. Further, this Court found the complaint so vague and ambiguous that defendant
could not reasonably prepare a response [Id.]. Accordingly, this Court ordered plaintiff to
file an amended complaint within 14 days that “set forth his causes of action, the factual
basis for any claims asserted against Defendant, and his requested relief in compliance with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” [Id. at 2–3].
Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 20, 2023 [Doc. 12]. In his
amended complaint, plaintiff alleges in relevant part:
Intentional and perpetual negation and disregard of responsibilities, due
diligence, and adherence to rules, regulations, lease agreements,
responsibilities, state laws, federal laws, and the intentional perpetuation of
abhorrent illicit and illegal behavior acted upon and perpetuated by
2
[defendant] at Summit Towers, 201 Locust St[.], Knoxville, TN, 37902,
negate any and all agreements not actually ever effectively rendered in a lease
agreement signed between 5/07/2021 – 5/07/2022. Intentional disregard and
negation of responsibility in terms of severe illicit and illegal behavior in
terms of health and safety fall into specific categories of crime. These crimes
committed knowingly and irresponsibly by [defendant] at Summit Towers,
fall specifically and concisely in the categories of: Targeted Harassment,
Civil Rights Violations, Americans with Disabilities Act Violations, Lease
Violations, and Fraud.
[Doc. 12]. Plaintiff further alleges that the alleged crimes committed by defendant
occurred between May 7, 2021, and July 7, 2022, and the “cause and effect” of the crimes
has been ongoing since May 7, 2021 [Id.].1 Plaintiff states that he is seeking “rectification
of severe, illegal, and completely unnecessary and abhorrent actions and intentional
disregard of responsibilities and the effects of those actions” by defendant [Id.]. Plaintiff
demands video surveillance and $37,500,000 in restitution [Id.].
Subsequently, defendant filed the instant motion [Doc. 14], seeking dismissal under
Rules 12(b)(6) and 41(b), or in the alternative, an order for a second amended complaint
containing a more definite statement.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW2
To survive a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must first comply with
Rule 8(a)(2) which requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the
1 Plaintiff’s amended complaint provides the date as “5/7/2/21” which the Court takes to
be a typographical error and correctly mean May 7, 2021.
2 For the reasons stated infra, the Court need not address defendant’s argument that
plaintiff’s amended complaint should be dismissed for failure to comply with this Court’s order
under Rule 41(b). Therefore, this Court will not include a discussion of Rule 41(b)’s standard of
review.
3
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “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.’” Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride,
Inc., 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007)). Specifically, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). This requires “more than
a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A complaint that pleads
facts “merely consistent with” liability, “stops short of the line between possibility and
plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.” Id. Finally, “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.” Id. at 663.
In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court “must construe the
complaint in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, accept all well-pled factual allegations as
true, and determine whether plaintiffs undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support of
those allegations that would entitle them to relief.” Bishop v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 520 F.3d
516, 519 (6th Cir. 2008). However, the Court need not accept legal conclusions or
unwarranted factual inferences as true. Montgomery v. Huntington Bank, 346 F.3d 693,
4
698 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Morgan v. Church’s Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir.
1987)).
Given plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court notes that federal courts have a duty to
“liberally construe the briefs of pro se litigants and apply less stringent standards to parties
proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel.” Bouyer v. Simon, 22 F. App’x
611, 612 (6th Cir. 2001). At the same time, however, “the lenient treatment generally
accorded to pro se litigants has limits.” Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir.
1996). As such, courts have not typically “been willing to abrogate basic pleading
essentials in pro se suits.” Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). “For
instance, federal pleading standards do not permit pro se litigants to proceed on pleadings
that are not readily comprehensible.” Walker v. Crowell, No. 2:14-CV-234, 2017 WL
663093, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 15, 2017) (citing Becker v. Ohio State Legal Servs. Ass’n,
19 F. App’x 321, 322 (6th Cir. 2001)).
III. ANALYSIS
Defendant argues that the amended complaint continues to fail to state claim upon
which relief can be granted [Doc. 14]. Specifically, defendant argues that plaintiff has
again failed to plead any factual bases for his claims, relying purely on blanket conclusory
statements [Doc. 15, p. 2]. Further, defendant states that plaintiff’s amended complaint is
largely incomprehensible [Id. at 2–3]. In the alternative to dismissing the Amended
Complaint, defendant requests that this Court order plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint [Id. at 6–8].
5
In response, plaintiff argues that “[t]he severity and illegal actions of [defendant]
could not be more clear in terms of legal vs non legal” [Doc. 17, p. 1]. Further, plaintiff
alleges that he has met “the requirements of the information in [his] amended motion” [Id.].
When examining the amended complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it
appears that plaintiff’s allegations stem from a “lease agreement signed between 5/07/2021
– 5/07/2022” [See Doc. 12]. However, aside from the existence of a lease agreement, the
dates of such agreement, and the alleged dates of the crimes and violations, which span
over a year, there appears to be no other factual matter within plaintiff’s amended
complaint. Instead, plaintiff’s amended complaint is largely conclusory, alleging
harassment, civil rights violations, Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) violations,
lease violations, and fraud without any facts to support these claims. Even accepting the
few facts provided as true, these facts are not sufficient to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face, and the Court cannot draw any reasonable inferences that defendant
is liable for the crimes and violations alleged. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 662–63.
Furthermore, the elements of the civil rights violations, ADA violations, and lease
violations plaintiff alleges cannot be discerned, and in turn, none of the material elements
can be supported, because of the breadth of the claims. Plaintiff does not cite to any statute,
judicial ruling, or legal doctrine in reference to his claims, leaving ambiguity as to what
specific “violations” plaintiff alleges. A court “cannot create a claim which [a plaintiff]
has not spelled out in his pleading.” Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F. App’x 608, 613 (6th Cir.
6
2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518
F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975)).
Even under the lenient standards governing pro se pleadings, plaintiff’s amended
complaint contains only bare allegations which are too vague and incomprehensible to
satisfy the standards of Rule 8(a) and overcome a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the complaint and the allegations contained therein
cannot withstand defendant’s motion to dismiss.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, defendant’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 14] is GRANTED, and
all of plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED [Doc. 12]. Accordingly, defendant’s
motion for summary judgment [Doc. 23] is DENIED as moot. This case will be
DISMISSED. A separate order will enter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7