Zeddies v. Clark County School District ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 CHRISTINA E. ZEDDIES, Case No. 2:20-cv-00447-GMN-NJK 8 Plaintiff(s), Order 9 v. [Docket No. 49] 10 CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et 11 al., 12 Defendant(s). 13 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for more definite statement. Docket No. 14 49. Plaintiff has not filed a response. 15 A motion for a more definite statement is made pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules 16 of Civil Procedure, which requires the filing of an amended pleading where the initial pleading is 17 “so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Hence, the rule “is 18 designed to strike at unintelligibility, rather than want of detail.” Woods v. Reno Commodities, 19 Inc., 600 F. Supp. 574, 580 (D. Nev. 1984). 20 Motions for a more definite statement are disfavored and rarely granted. Herd v. Cnty. of 21 San Bernadino, 311 F. Supp. 3d 117, 1162 (C.D. Cal. 2018). A motion for more definite statement 22 must be considered in light of the modest pleading standards required by the Federal Rule of Civil 23 Procedure. Id. Similarly, when analyzing the pleading of a pro se plaintiff, courts are particularly 24 mindful that such filings must be construed in a liberal manner. See, e.g., Beckner v. El Cajon 25 Police Dept., 2007 WL 2873406, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2007). 26 In this case, Plaintiff has been ordered to file an amended complaint limited to a claim 27 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Docket No. 26 at 14. Although Defendants highlight certain aspects 28 of Plaintiff’s amended complaint that may be confusing, they also expressly argue that the amended complaint “does not contain any allegations that satisfy the pleading requirements for 2|| stating a claim for relief under Section 1983.” Docket No. 49 at 5. “If the movant believes the opponent’s pleading does not state a claim for relief, the proper course is a motion [to dismiss] under Rule 12(b)(6) even if the pleading is vague or ambiguous.” 5C Wright and Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, § 1376 (supp. 2021) (emphasis added). Hence, it is unclear whether 6] Defendants’ arguments are properly presented through the lens of a motion for more definite 7|| statement, as opposed to a motion to dismiss. 8 In light of the above, the Court DENIES without prejudice the motion for more definite statement. The deadline to respond to the amended complaint is hereby RESET for August 27, 10} 2021. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: August 13, 2021 Nancy J. Koppe 14 United Statés-Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28