Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02058/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02058-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1402 Medical Malpractice

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ned Morris, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

United States of America, et al., 

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-2058-PHX-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Second Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. 12)

filed by Defendant United States of America pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(e). Defendant United

States of America contends that Plaintiff failed to comply with this Court's Order of April 9,

2007, (Doc. 7), which granted its previous Motion for a More Definite Statement (Doc. 6).

BACKGROUND

On August 25, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging medical malpractice pursuant

to the FTCA. On January 11, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Phoenix Indian

Medical Center and a Motion for More Definite Statement as to Defendant United States. In

the Motion for More Definite Statement, Defendant United States argued that although the

caption of the Plaintiff’s Complaint included the United States of America as a Defendant, the

Complaint contained no specific allegations of wrongdoing against the United States. More

specifically, Plaintiff merely alleged that he developed an infection as a result of breaches of

the standard of care by Phoenix Indian Medical Center and/or its employees, agents and

Case 2:06-cv-02058-SMM Document 13 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Plaintiff also substituted the United States for Phoenix Indian Medical Center

in paragraph 9.

- 2 -

ostensible agents. However, Plaintiff failed to identify 1) the alleged negligent acts or

omissions, 2) when the alleged acts or omissions occurred, and 3) which Government

employee(s) committed the alleged negligent acts or omissions.

On April 9, 2007, this Court granted the Motion to Dismiss Defendant Phoenix Indian

Medical Center from the lawsuit and the Motion for a More Definite Statement. Consequently,

the Court ordered Plaintiff to amend his Complaint by April 20, 2007. Therein, Plaintiff was

specifically ordered to (1) identify the government employees who allegedly breached the

standard of care, (2) identify the negligent acts or omissions that constituted the breach, and (3)

identify more precisely when the alleged negligent acts or omission occurred. On April 19,

2007, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. However, as Defendant's counsel accurately

points out, the only difference between Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and Plaintiff’s

original Complaint, is that Plaintiff's counsel has deleted Phoenix Indian Medical Center from

the caption and from paragraphs1, 4, 8 and 9.1

 Clearly, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

(Doc. 8) does not comply with this Court’s Order of April 9, 2007 (Doc. 7). Plaintiff's First

Amended Complaint does not identify the government employees who allegedly breached the

standard of care nor does it identify the negligent acts or omissions that constituted the breach.

It also fails to identify more precisely when the alleged negligent acts or omissions occurred.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion for a More Definite Statement

A. Standard of Review

A complaint guides the parties' discovery, putting the defendant on notice of the evidence

it needs to adduce in order to defend against the plaintiff's allegations. Coleman v. Quaker Oats

Company, 232 F.3d 1271, 1292 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure requires that plaintiff's complaint set forth: "a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Notice to a defendant of the mere existence of

Case 2:06-cv-02058-SMM Document 13 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

See this Court's Order entered April 9, 2007. (Doc. 7).

- 3 -

grievance is not sufficient, the complaint must at least set forth enough details so as to provide

defendant and the court with a fair idea of the basis of the complaint and the legal grounds

claimed for recovery. Self Directed Placement Corp. v. Control Data Corp., 908, F.2d 462, 466

(9th Cir. 1990).

If a pleading fails to specify the allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice,

prior to responding to the pleading, a defendant can move for a more definite statement under

Rule 12(e). Rule 12(e) provides in pertinent part:

If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous

that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the

party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive

pleading. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details

desired.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e).

B. Motion for a More Definite Statement is Granted

Defendant contends that Plaintiff's Complaint lacks sufficient specificity for Defendant

United States of America to properly defend this case. Despite Plaintiff's allegation that he

developed an infection as a result of breaches of the standard of care by Defendant, its

employees, agents and ostensible agents, Plaintiff has once again failed to identify (1) the

alleged act or omission, (2) when the alleged act or omission occurred, and (3) which

Government employee(s) committed the alleged negligent act or omission. Consequently,

Defendant remains unable to discern who is allegedly responsible or what evidence is necessary

to defend against Plaintiff's allegations.

It is critical to the Defendant's assessment of whether certain defenses are available, the

determination of whether Plaintiff's claims are in accordance with FTCA, and the ability to

draft a timely response, that Plaintiff properly amend its Complaint.2

 Therefore, the Second

Amended Complaint shall identify the Government employees who allegedly breached the

standard of care, identify the negligent acts or omissions that constituted the breach, and identify

Case 2:06-cv-02058-SMM Document 13 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 4 -

more precisely when the alleged negligent act or omission occurred. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING Defendant's Motion for a More Definite

Statement (Doc. 12).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until Monday, June 4, 2007 to file a

Second Amended Complaint.

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02058-SMM Document 13 Filed 05/22/07 Page 4 of 4