Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01764/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01764-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT BENNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SHASTA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1764-MCE-KJN

ORDER

Through this action, Plaintiff Robert Bennett seeks redress for a slew of purported 

constitutional violations, all stemming from the impoundment of his dogs by Defendant 

County of Shasta (“County”) in May 2013. Presently before the Court are Motions to 

Dismiss and alternative Motions for a More Definite Statement brought by Defendants 

Shasta County, Lt. Mark Lillibridge and Mike Lindsey (ECF No. 14) and by Defendant 

Haven Humane Society (ECF No. 15). For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motions 

for a More Definite Statement are GRANTED and their Motions to Dismiss are DENIED 

as moot. 

A motion for more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) attacks “the 

unintelligibility of the complaint, not simply the mere lack of detail . . . .” Neveau v. City 

of Fresno, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1169 (E.D. Cal. 2005). A Rule 12(e) motion should be 

granted only if the complaint is “so vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot 

Case 2:15-cv-01764-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 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

2

respond, even with a simple denial, in good faith or without prejudice to himself.” Cellars 

v. Pac. Coast Packaging, Inc., 189 F.R.D. 575, 578 (N.D. Cal. 1999); see also Bautista 

v. L.A. Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 843 n.1 (9th Cir. 2000) (Reinhardt, J., concurring) (party can 

move for more definite statement on those rare occasions where a complaint is so vague 

or ambiguous that party cannot reasonably frame a responsive pleading).

“Rule 12(e) is designed to strike an unintelligibility rather than want of detail.... A 

motion for a more definite statement should not be used to test an opponent's case by 

requiring him to allege certain facts or retreat from his allegations.” Neveu, 392 F. Supp. 

2d at 1169 (quoting Palm Springs Med. Clinic, Inc. v. Desert Hosp., 628 F. Supp. 454, 

464-65 (C.D. Cal. 1986). If the facts sought by a motion for a more definite statement 

are obtainable by discovery, the motion should be denied. See McHenry v. Renne, 

84 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996); Neveu, 392 F. Supp. 2d at 1169-70; Sagan v. Apple 

Computer, 874 F. Supp. 1072, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 1994). “This liberal standard of pleading 

is consistent with [Rule] 8(a)(2) which allows pleadings that contain a ‘short and plain 

statement of the claim.’ Both rules assume that the parties will familiarize themselves 

with the claims and ultimate facts through the discovery process.” Neveu, 392 F. Supp. 

2d at 1169 (citing Sagan, 874 F. Supp. at 1077 (“Motions for a more definite statement 

are viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted because of the minimal pleading 

requirements of the Federal Rules.”)).

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint is so rambling and confusing that the Court cannot 

require Defendants to respond to it without risking the possibility that their attempt to do 

so will result in unintentional prejudice. See Cellars, 189 F.R.D. at 578. For example, 

every single factual allegation is incorporated into all of Plaintiff’s causes of action, 

making it impossible to determine the specific facts on which his individual claims 

depend. See Destfino v. Kennedy, No. CV-F-08-1269, 2009 WL 63566 at *4 (E.D. Cal. 

Jan. 8, 2009) (“Allegations . . . which incorporate each preceding paragraph, regardless 

of relevancy, are not permitted.”). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action is 

brought against all eight defendants, but it is readily apparent that not every purported 

Case 2:15-cv-01764-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 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

3

constitutional violation can be maintained against certain defendants. Similarly, 

Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 is brought against all 

eight defendants even though the only allegation of a conspiracy refers solely to

Defendants Haven Humane and the County. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 242. Finally, Plaintiff’s First 

and Second Causes of Action contain a multitude of claims for relief, including multiple 

due process claims, multiple Fifth Amendment claims, and what appear to be Fourth 

Amendment issues. 

In sum, Plaintiff’s Complaint departs so fundamentally from being a “short and 

plain statement” of his entitlement to relief that it fails to give Defendants fair notice of 

the claims against them. Defendants cannot be reasonably expected to frame an 

informed responsive pleading given that deficiency. Furthermore, any attempt to 

adjudicate a Motion to Dismiss based on this Complaint would be so time-consuming 

that it would “impede the orderly, efficient, and economic disposition” of other disputes 

on the Court’s docket. Ebrahimi v. City of Huntsville Bd. Of Educ., 114 F. 3d 162, 165 

(11th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions for a More a Definite Statement

(ECF Nos. 14 and 15) are GRANTED, and their alternative requests that the matter be 

dismissed are DENIED as moot. Should he choose to do so, Plaintiff is directed to file 

an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

within 21 days from the date this Order is electronically filed. Failure to do so will result

in this action being dismissed with prejudice and without further notice to any of the 

parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-01764-MCE-CMK Document 26 Filed 03/14/16 Page 3 of 3