Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00002/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00002-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LIZZETTA MCCONNELL, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 16-0002-WS-N

 )

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA )

HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, )

 )

Defendant. )

 ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss and its 

alternative motion for more definite statement. (Doc. 4). The parties have filed 

briefs in support of their respective positions, (Docs. 4, 13, 14), and the motions 

are ripe for resolution. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the 

motion for more definite statement is due to be granted and that the motion to 

dismiss is due to be denied as moot.

The Eleventh Circuit has identified four types of shotgun pleadings: (1) “a 

complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of 

all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before 

and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint”; (2) “a complaint 

... replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected 

to any particular cause of action”; (3) a complaint that does “not separate[e] into a 

different count each cause of action or claim for relief”; and (4) a complaint that 

“assert[s] multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of 

the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the 

defendants the claim is brought against.” Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s 

Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1321-23 (11th Cir. 2015). The defendant argues the 

complaint suffers from the second and third of these flaws. (Doc. 4 at 3).

Case 1:16-cv-00002-WS-N Document 15 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 3
2

“The unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun pleadings is that they 

fail to one degree or another, and in one way or another, to give the defendants 

adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim 

rests.” Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1323. Based on the gulf between what the Court 

understands the complaint to allege and what the plaintiff says is intended, the 

Court concludes that the complaint does not give the defendant fair notice of the 

plaintiff’s claims and the grounds upon which they rest.

Using the District’s form complaint for employment cases,1 the complaint 

lists the discriminatory “acts complained of” as a “hostile work environment” and 

a “termination” (later defined as a “constructive termination” due to the “hostile 

environment”), (Doc. 1 at 1, 3), and it identifies the basis of this “discrimination” 

as “race” or “color” in violation of “Title VII.” (Id. at 2). As a final “act 

complained of,” the complaint lists “retaliation” for “speaking out against the 

inequitable treatment of myself and other African American employees.” (Id. at 1-

2). Based on these allegations the Court interprets the complaint as asserting three 

claims, all under Title VII: (1) racially hostile work environment; (2) racially 

discriminatory constructive discharge, based on the hostile work environment; and 

(3) retaliation for opposing racial discrimination. The plaintiff, however, insists 

the complaint includes another claim: for “race discrimination” in certain 

particulars, including insulting language, increased workloads, stricter deadlines, 

heightened scrutiny, (Doc. 13 at 3), which conduct is mentioned in the complaint 

but apparently only in support of the hostile work environment claim.

As to the retaliation claim, the complaint clearly identifies only one action 

as being motivated by retaliation for the plaintiff’s filing of an internal EEO 

complaint: a disappointing evaluation in the second half of 2014. (Doc. 1 at 3). In 

brief, however, the plaintiff insists the evaluation is only “part” of the defendant’s 

retaliatory conduct. (Doc. 13 at 4). The remainder is not identified. 

 1 Because the complaint was filed by counsel, it is unclear why the form 

complaint – intended to assist pro se plaintiffs – was used.

Case 1:16-cv-00002-WS-N Document 15 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 3
3

As to the hostile work environment claim, the complaint identifies the 

evaluation as being part of her retaliation claim only. (Doc. 1 at 3). In brief, 

however, the plaintiff asserts that the evaluation is part of her hostile work 

environment claim as well. (Doc. 13 at 4).

For the reasons set forth above, the defendant’s motion for more definite 

statement is granted. Pursuant to Rule 12(e), the plaintiff is ordered to file and 

serve, on or before May 13, 2016, an amended complaint that: (1) does not rely 

on the District’s form complaint; (2) sets forth the plaintiff’s allegations in 

numbered paragraphs and is otherwise consistent with Rule 10(b); (3) breaks the 

plaintiff’s claims into separate, clearly identified counts, each of which enumerates 

the specific preceding paragraphs of the amended complaint that are relevant to 

the count; and (4) complies with the formatting requirements of General Local 

Rule 5(a).2 Failure to comply with this order will subject the plaintiff to the 

consequences identified in Rule 12(e). 

Because the defendant’s motion to dismiss is directed towards the original 

complaint, and because the forthcoming amended complaint will become the 

operative pleading, the motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

3

DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of April, 2016. 

 s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 2 In particular, the amended complaint – unlike the plaintiff’s brief – is to be 

double-spaced. 

3 If the plaintiff is wise, she will use the amended complaint to address as 

appropriate the arguments asserted in the defendant’s motion to dismiss concerning the 

amount of factual information she should include in order to meet Rule 8(a)(2)’s 

plausibility standard. The plaintiff should not assume she will be given endless 

opportunities to amend her complaint before facing dismissal with prejudice for failure to 

state a claim. 

Case 1:16-cv-00002-WS-N Document 15 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 3