Filed: Sep. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RONNIE L. WHITE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Motion for More Definite Statement filed by Defendant, the City of Edmundson ("the City"). (ECF No. 15) Plaintiffs Quinton M. Thomas and Bradley Jiles (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs") are opposed to the motion. After careful consideration, the Court denies the City's motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed this putative class action, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RONNIE L. WHITE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Motion for More Definite Statement filed by Defendant, the City of Edmundson ("the City"). (ECF No. 15) Plaintiffs Quinton M. Thomas and Bradley Jiles (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs") are opposed to the motion. After careful consideration, the Court denies the City's motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed this putative class action, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, ..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RONNIE L. WHITE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for More Definite Statement filed by Defendant, the City of Edmundson ("the City"). (ECF No. 15) Plaintiffs Quinton M. Thomas and Bradley Jiles (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs") are opposed to the motion. After careful consideration, the Court denies the City's motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City, claiming it has a deliberate policy that violates their constitutional rights. Count I of Plaintiff's Class Action Compliant alleges violations of the Fourteenth Amendment for imprisoning Plaintiffs for inability to pay; Count II alleges violations of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments for failure to provide adequate counsel; Count III alleges violations of the Fourteenth Amendment for subjecting Plaintiffs to indefinite and arbitrary detention; Count IV alleges violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments for issuances of invalid warrants; and Count V alleges violations of the Fourteenth Amendment for the use of threats of incarceration to collect debts. (Id. at ¶¶ 157-79)
The City moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) for the Court to order Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to provide a more definite statement. Plaintiffs oppose the motion and argue their complaint satisfies federal pleading requirements.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), "[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." "Rule 12(e) is not designed to remedy an alleged lack of detail, rather, the Rule is intended to serve as a means to remedy unintelligible pleadings." Resolution Trust Corp. v. Fiala, 870 F.Supp. 962, 977 (E.D. Mo. 1994). However, when 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." Whitehead v. City of St. Louis, No. 4:09CV483 CDP, 2009 WL 4430699, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 24, 2009) (quoting Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002)).
DISCUSSION
The City argues the Court should order Plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement regarding their alleged constitutional violations. Specifically, the City wants Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to include the following:
a. Each action that each Plaintiff contends to have resulted in the violation of a constitutional right;
b. Each injury resulting therefrom; and
c. The identity of each person (by title or name) who committed each such action (i.e., whether it was the prosecutor, municipal judge, court clerk, police officer, etc.).
(ECF No. 15, at 3) The City also argues the putative class definitions are vague and uncertain.1
"In an action under § 1983, a municipality ... cannot be liable on a respondeat superior theory, but can be held liable if a constitutional violation resulted from a municipal policy or custom." A.H. v. St. Louis Cry., Mo., 891 F.3d 721, 728 (8th Cir. 2018). "Only where a municipality's failure to train its employees in a relevant respect evidences a `deliberate indifference' to the rights of its inhabitants can such a shortcoming be properly thought of as a city `policy or custom' that is actionable under § 1983." City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989). Therefore, municipal liability will apply in two situations: "where a municipal policy is itself unconstitutional, and where the municipality's deliberate indifference to the need to train and supervise its employees causes an employee to violate a third party's constitutional rights." A.H., 891 F.3d at 728.
A plaintiff bringing a claim for municipal liability pursuant to § 1983 must assert or allege fact from which reasonable inferences can be drawn that the conduct of which he or she complains was the result of an unconstitutional policy or custom. McKay v. City of St. Louis, No. 4:15-CV-01315-JAR, 2016 WL 4594142, at *5 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 2, 2016). "A pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees is ordinarily necessary to demonstrate deliberate indifference for purposes of failure to train." S.M. v. Lincoln Cty., 874 F.3d 581, 585 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 62 (2011)). The plaintiff, however, "need not specifically plead the unconstitutional policy or incorporate the policy's specific language into his complaint" because "[a]t the time his complaint is filed, a plaintiff may not be privy to the facts necessary to accurately describe or identify the specific policies or customs which may have caused the deprivation of his constitutional right." McKay, 2016 WL 4594142, at *5.
The Court finds Plaintiffs' pleadings, while lengthy, are not unintelligible to necessitate a more definite statement. "Because of liberal notice pleading and the availability of extensive discovery, motions for a more definite statement are universally disfavored." McCoy v. St. Louis Pub. Sch., 4:11CV918 CDP, 2011 WL 4857931, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 13, 2011). "Rule 12(e) is not designed to remedy an alleged lack of detail" but simply "intended to serve as a means to remedy unintelligible pleadings." Boswell v. Panera Bread Co., 91 F.Supp.3d 1141, 1144 (E.D. Mo. 2015). "The only question is whether it is possible to frame a response to the pleading." Id. Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint alleges various facets of an alleged municipal policy or custom that may subject it to liability under § 1983, a municipality. For example, Plaintiffs allege that "[City] officials and employees—through their conduct, decisions, training, rules, policies, practices, and procedures—constructed and implemented this scheme for the overriding purpose of raising municipal revenue (and not for any legitimate law enforcement purpose)." (Id. at ¶ 4) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege the City's mayor directly monitored the number of traffic tickets issued by City police officers and "admonished those officers when they do not issue as many tickets as the Mayor would like." (Id. at ¶ 35) The City's argument that Plaintiffs' allegations fail to sufficiently plead the specifics of each alleged constitutional violation does not constitute a basis for relief at this stage.2 Such details will undoubtedly be expounded during the course of discovery.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for More Definite Statement filed by Defendant, the City of Edmundson, (ECF No. 15) is DENIED.
The City is reminded of its obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the Class Action Compliant within the time set by the rules.
