Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02244/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02244-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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 

Maris S. Mitchell, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, 

United States Postal Service, 

Defendant.

No. CV11-2244-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 

(Doc. 7) and Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. 9). The Court now 

rules on the motions. 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel on November 15, 2011. (Doc. 3.) The 

Court denied that motion on November 23, 2011, citing Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate 

exceptional circumstances. (Doc. 6.) 

 On December 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s 

ruling on her Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 7.) In her Motion for Reconsideration, 

Plaintiff admits she did not know about the Bradshaw factors referenced in the Court’s 

Order and describes her attempt to retain counsel to represent her in this case. 

 As the Court noted in its earlier Order, there is no constitutional right to appointed 

counsel in a civil case. Ivey v. Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th 

Cir. 1982). But the Court may appoint counsel in “exceptional circumstances,” Wilborn 

v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986), and, in civil rights employment 

Case 2:11-cv-02244-JAT Document 14 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

discrimination cases, when the court deems just, Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc’y of San 

Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981). 

 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s attempts to retain counsel as described in her 

Motion for Reconsideration do not constitute exceptional circumstances. The Court 

further finds that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration demonstrates her ability to 

respond to Court orders and articulate her position. Finally, the Court finds that the letter 

attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration does not contribute to the Court’s 

ability to assess the merit of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court therefore will deny the Motion 

for Reconsideration. 

MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides that a party may move for a more 

definite statement of a pleading if the pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the party 

who is allowed a responsive pleading cannot reasonably prepare a response. A Rule 

12(e) motion must point out the defects in the pleading and the details desired. 

 Defendant filed his Motion for More Definite Statement on November 23, 2011. 

(Doc. 9.) Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s Complaint is so vague and ambiguous that he 

cannot formulate a response. 

 In her Response to the Motion for More Definite Statement, Plaintiff does not 

actually respond to Defendant’s arguments in the Motion. She instead attempts to clarify 

the allegations in her Complaint. Plaintiff’s attempts at clarification and failure to 

respond to Defendant’s arguments seem to indicate that she acknowledges the 

deficiencies of her Complaint. 

 The Court agrees with Defendant that the Complaint does not meet the 

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and is so vague and ambiguous that 

Defendant cannot form an appropriate response. While giving some background, the 

Complaint does not contain short and plain statements of the grounds for Plaintiff’s 

claims for relief. Nor does the Complaint identify what state or federal statute or 

constitutional provision Defendant allegedly violated. 

Case 2:11-cv-02244-JAT Document 14 Filed 05/07/12 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

 The Court therefore will grant Defendant’s Motion for More Definite Statement 

and hereby orders Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of 

the date of this Order. The Amended Complaint shall comply with the requirements of 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 10(b) and shall set forth the factual bases for 

Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s claims themselves shall be set out in separate Counts and 

shall identify which law, treaty, or constitutional provision Defendant allegedly violated. 

The Amended Complaint also shall: 1) provide the names of the United States Postal 

Service Employees who allegedly discriminated and/or retaliated against Plaintiff; 2) 

contain a description of the alleged discriminatory conduct and the alleged adverse 

employment action or actions; and 3) identify the time frames for the alleged 

discriminatory conduct. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 7.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Defendant’s Motion for More 

Definite Statement (Doc. 9). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint that 

meets the requirements set out above within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. 

If Plaintiff fails to file an Amended Complaint within that time, the Clerk of the Court 

shall dismiss this case without further notice for failure to obey a Court order and failure 

to prosecute. 

 Dated this 7th day of May, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-02244-JAT Document 14 Filed 05/07/12 Page 3 of 3