The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
AMY MCDILL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civ. Act. No.: 2:18-cv-597-ECM
) (WO)
STATE OF ALABAMA BOARD OF )
PADRONS AND PAROLES, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Motion for a More Definite Statement (doc. 31), filed
on February 11, 2019.
The Plaintiff, Amy McDill (“Plaintiff”), originally filed a complaint in this case on
June 21, 2018. (Doc. 1). In her original complaint, the Plaintiff brought claims of unlawful
discrimination against seven defendants: The State of Alabama Board of Pardons and
Paroles, Phil Bryant, Stacey Brown, Chris Norman, Cliff Walker, Lynn Head, and Terry
G. Davis (“Defendants”). On July 19, 2018, the Defendants filed a Partial Motion to
Dismiss and Motion for a More Definite Statement. (Doc. 9).
On January 14, 2019, this Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’
Partial Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the following claims with prejudice: claims pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1201, et seq.; claims of age discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981;
claims of sex discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981; claims of retaliation for
engaging in protected conduct related to age or sex discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1981; claims against Defendant Phil Bryant in his official capacity; and claims of age
discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Doc. 28).
Additionally, this Court granted the Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement and
directed the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint conforming to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Id. at 7).
On January 28, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 29). The
Defendants again moved for Partial Dismissal and More Definite Statement. (Doc. 31).
For the reasons that follow, the Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The Defendants move, pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(e), for a more definite
statement, asserting that the Plaintiff’s complaint is a “shotgun pleading.” In response, the
Plaintiff argues that her amended complaint is not a shotgun pleading but because “very
limited, practically no discovery, has been undertaken, it is necessary to have a broad
pleading.” (Doc. 33 at 1). The Plaintiff’s “limited discovery” argument ignores clear
precedent.
The U.S. Supreme Court specified that “Rule 8…does not unlock the doors of
discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). Further, “discovery follows the filing of a well-pleaded
complaint[;] [i]t is not a device to enable the plaintiff to make a case when his complaint
has failed to state a claim.” Carter v. DeKalb Co., Ga, 521 Fed. Appx. 725, 728 (11th
2013)(emphasis in original). Likewise, “[c]ourts in the Eleventh Circuit have little
tolerance for shotgun pleadings.” Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th
Cir. 2018). Such pleadings “waste scarce judicial resources” and “‘inexorably broaden the
scope of discovery . . .’” Id. (quoting Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d
955, 981-83 (11th Cir. 2008)). Moreover, a plaintiff engages in shotgun pleading when
she “asserts multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of
defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the defendants the
claim is brought against.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313,
1323 (11th Cir. 2015); see also Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001)
(stating that the plaintiff’s complaint was a “quintessential ‘shotgun’ pleading” because it
referred to the defendants collectively, making no distinctions among them concerning the
conduct in which they engaged). When a plaintiff drafts a shotgun complaint, she deprives
defendants of “adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which
each claim rests.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323.
In the instant case, the Court previously directed the Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint which conforms with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 28). Despite
this directive, the Plaintiff’s amended complaint, like her original complaint, qualifies as a
shotgun pleading, wherein she asserts multiple claims against multiple defendants, yet fails
to specify which defendants are responsible for what alleged discriminatory conduct.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges three separate causes of action against seven separate
defendants. Nowhere in the amended complaint, however, does the Plaintiff attempt to
draw distinctions between the conduct of the seven Defendants in relation to the separate
causes of action. Instead, she continually uses vague and general language that “the
Defendants[’]” actions caused her harm. The Plaintiff’s failure to delineate which facts
and which counts apply to which Defendants deprives them of the adequate notice of the
allegations against them to which they are entitled. Notably, the amended complaint
references claims which this Court previously dismissed with prejudice, further
contributing to the pleading’s the lack of clarity. For these reasons, the Court concludes
that the amended complaint (doc. 29) filed on January 28, 2019 is due to be STRICKEN
from the docket as it does not comport with the Court’s order to file an amended complaint
that is clear and concise, and details specific claims and factual allegations against each
defendant.
For the reasons discussed, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants’ Motion for More Definite Statement (doc. 31) is GRANTED.
2. The Amended Complaint filed on January 28, 2019 is STRICKEN from the
docket.
3. That on or before November 13, 2019, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint
that specifically:
a. Identifies the individual(s) the plaintiff seeks to name as defendants and
provides facts to show that particular individual’s participation or
involvement in her claims;
b. Identifies each claim relative to the actions taken against her by each
named defendant;
c. Describes with clarity the specific factual allegations that are material to
each specific count against each named defendant;
d. Describes how each named defendant violated the plaintiff’s rights; and
e. Complies with FED.R.CIV.P. 8 and which is complete unto itself, which
does not incorporate any previous pleading by reference, and which
complies with this and all previous Orders of the Court in this case.
It is further ORDERED that the
Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot.
DONE this 30th day of October, 2019.
/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE