Ward v. Gates ( 2009 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LISA LYONS WARD, :
:
Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 08-2040 (RMU)
:
v. : Document No.: 8
:
ROBERT M. GATES et al., :
:
Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND
GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the court on the defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
for a more definite statement. The plaintiff, a resident of Maryland, brings a civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 against Robert M. Gates and Pete Geren, who
are, respectively, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army. For the reasons
discussed below, the court denies without prejudice the motion to dismiss and grants the motion
for a more definite statement.
II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint are the following:
C On or about November 12, 2004, the Plaintiff was conducting a lawful
deposition of Defendants’ agent.
C Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, Defendants’ agent(s) had conspired and
arranged for Plaintiff to be arrested in an attempt to prevent the deposition,
as well as irreparably harm Plaintiff and . . . Plaintiff’s reputation, as well as
Plaintiff’s law practice.
C Subsequent to Plaintiff’s arrest, one of Defendant’s agents telephoned
Plaintiff and profusely apologized, in his capacity as Defendant’s agent, to
Plaintiff, for Plaintiff’s unlawful arrest, detention and confinement.
C That notwithstanding, the other Defendants’ agents continued to defame
Plaintiff by circulating a PDF file containing defamatory and inflammatory
statements against the Plaintiff as though they were true and accurate even
though they knew the same were false and misleading.
C Additionally, the Defendants’ agents attempted to use information they knew
to be false, defamatory and/or inflammatory against the Plaintiff in an effort
to have Plaintiff removed as counsel on cases involving Defendants’ agents,
in an effort to drive Plaintiff from the practice of law.
C No indictment was ever presented against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff was
further completely vindicated of the false charges against her.
Compl. ¶¶ 6-11. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated her rights under the Fourth,
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by causing her arrest (Count
1), her detention and confinement (Count 2) and her strip search (Count 3), as well as by
conspiring to violate her constitutional rights (Count 4) and refusing or neglecting to prevent
violations of her constitutional rights (Count 5). See id. ¶¶ 12-24. In addition, the plaintiff
claims tortious interference with contract (Count 6), and malicious prosecution and abuse of
process (Count 7). See id. ¶¶ 24-26. She demands unspecified “injunctive relief, and actual,
special, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, expenses and interest.” Id. at
8.
III. ANALYSIS
The defendants argue that the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, rendering them unable to file an appropriate response. See Defs.’ Mot.
2
at 10-12. The defendants describe the pleading as “twenty-six vague and ambiguous paragraphs
alleging arrest, detention, confinement, strip search, conspiracy, refusing or neglecting to prevent,
tortious interference with contract, and malicious prosecution and abuse of process, all allegedly
in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.” Id. at 10. They assert that “[i]t is impossible to
discern . . . the location of the alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985,” and that the
complaint “is devoid of any description of the individuals involved, whether they were state or
federal officials[,] which department the alleged ‘agents’ work for, or any information sufficient
to give Defendant[s] the opportunity to frame a responsive pleading.” Id. at 2. Further, the
defendants argue, the complaint fails to set forth allegations supporting the plaintiff’s conspiracy
and defamation claims and “information concerning the ‘lawful deposition’ the Plaintiff claims
she was in the process of conducting.” Id. at 10. For these reasons, they move under Rule 12(e)
for a more definite statement. See id. at 12. The defendants also move for dismissal pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(1), (2) and (3). See id. at 4-10.
The plaintiff responds by “acknowledg[ing] that there are additional yet to be named,
unknown defendants,” and represents that she “intends to cure said minor defect.” Pl.’s Opp’n at
7. She adds that she has met the requirements for notifying the defendants set forth in Rule 8.
See id. at 10. Further, she claims that she has alleged enough facts to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because she alleges that her arrest was the result of
a conspiracy between state and federal actors. See id. at 7. Moreover, she asserts that she has
made sufficient allegations to withstand a motion to dismiss with respect to her 42 U.S.C. § 1985claim because she was “acting in her capacity as a legal representative” at the time of her arrest,
3
and therefore, the defendants obstructed justice. See id. at 9.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a pleading must contain a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED . R. CIV . P. 8(a)(2).
“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it
demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Its purpose is to give fair notice to the defendants of the
claim being asserted to allow them to prepare a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense
and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,
498 (D.D.C. 1977). If a complaint is “so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably
prepare a response,” the court may order the plaintiff to file a more definite statement. FED . R.
CIV . P. 12(e); see Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (stating that “[i]f a
pleading fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice, a defendant
can move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before responding”). In cases in which
it appears from the complaint that the plaintiff could possibly state a claim upon which relief
could be granted, but the facts set forth in the complaint are simply “too vague to give the
defendants the notice to which they are entitled,” granting a defendant’s motion for a more
definite statement is the appropriate remedy. Dorsey v. Am. Express Co., 499 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3
(D.D.C. 2007).
The court concurs with the defendants that the complaint as drafted is vague and
ambiguous, and that the defendants cannot reasonably be expected to prepare a meaningful
response to it. Under these circumstances, the court concludes that a more definite statement is
in order. See Woodruff v. Mineta, 215 F. Supp. 2d 135, 139 (D.D.C. 2002) (granting a Rule 12(e)
4
motion where “[t]he defendant believe[d] the ‘confusion’ [could] be ‘resolved by the plaintiff
simply submitting an amended complaint where he explains in a short factual statement . . . the
actions that form the bases of his claims of discrimination,” and where “the plaintiff himself
acknowledge[d] ‘his failure to incorporate facts detailing [his allegations] and ask[ed] for a
chance to amend his complaint”); see also Hilska v. Jones, 217 F.R.D. 16, 25 (D.D.C. 2003)
(concluding that “Rule 12(e) relief is the most suitable remedy . . . when taking into account the
pro se status of the plaintiff and the fact that the parties are unable to engage in discovery until
they are capable of identifying the claims at issue”). The court therefore grants the defendants’
motion for a more definite statement and denies without prejudice their motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, the plaintiff shall file a statement including the following information: (1)
whether she sues the Secretaries of Defense and the Army in their individual or official
capacities, or both; (2) the location and description of the events alleged to have occurred on
November 12, 2004; (3) the names of all “agents” and other individuals involved in the events
alleged to have occurred on November 12, 2004; (4) whether the “agents” and other individuals
involved in the events alleged to have occurred on November 12, 2004 were employees of the
federal government and, if so, whether they were employees of the Departments of Defense or
the Army; and (5) the dates and locations of, and the names of all individuals involved in, and
descriptions of, all other events alleged in the complaint.
In the alternative, the plaintiff may file an amended complaint. See FED . R. CIV . P. 15(a).
The amended pleading must comply with Rules 8-11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
all applicable Local Civil Rules of this Court. Her more definite statement or amended
complaint must be filed on or before September 16, 2009.
5
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court denies without prejudice the defendants’ motion to
dismiss and grants the defendants’ motion for a more definite statement. An Order consistent
with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 1st day of
September, 2009.
RICARDO M. URBINA
United States District Judge
6