Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_10-cv-00994/USCOURTS-almd-3_10-cv-00994-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

CHARISSE D. ALLEN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:10-CV-994-WKW [WO]

)

CYPRESS VILLAGE, LTD., et al., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

The Complaint is before the court sua sponte. Based upon this court’s inherent

authority, Plaintiff Charisse D. Allen will be required to replead the Complaint.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to provide

“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “The point is to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and

the grounds upon which it rests.’” Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955,

981-83 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “To

that end, a complaint’s ‘[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

the speculative level.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

Summarized, the factual allegations in the Complaint are as follows. Since August

2003, Plaintiff has leased an apartment in the Cypress Village Apartments complex located

in Tuskegee, Alabama. (Compl. ¶ 1.) The complex receives federal funds from the United

States Department of Agriculture and/or the United States Department of Housing and Urban

Development, and Plaintiff qualifies for rent reductions based upon her “mental disabilities”

Case 3:10-cv-00994-WKW-CSC Document 34 Filed 05/03/11 Page 1 of 5
that prevent her from working. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 12.) Plaintiff names eight Defendants, both

individuals and corporations, affiliated with the ownership and management of the complex. 

She brings federal law claims, pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.,

the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and § 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act, presumably 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), and a multitude of state law claims. 

(Compl., “Prayer for Relief,” ¶ 1.) The claims rest on allegations of wrongful attempts to

evict Plaintiff, efforts to deny Plaintiff rent reductions, and selective enforcement of rules

against Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 8.) Some Defendants are charged with the commission of

these acts, while others are faulted for their failure to intervene. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-18.) 

“Shotgun pleadings are those that incorporate every antecedent allegation by reference

into each subsequent claim for relief . . . .” Wagner v. First Horizon Pharm. Corp., 464 F.3d

1273, 1279 (11th Cir. 2006). “‘[S]hotgun pleadings wreak havoc on the judicial system.’” 

Id. (quoting Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1130 (11th Cir. 2001)). “Such pleadings divert

already stretched judicial resources into disputes that are not structurally prepared to use

those resources efficiently.” Id.; see also Davis, 516 F.3d at 981-83 (discussing the many

“unacceptable consequences of shotgun pleading”). Furthermore, Rule 10(b) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure instructs that “[i]f doing so would promote clarity, each claim

founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count . . . .” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b); see also Davis, 516 F.3d at 980 (“[U]ntold causes of action, all

bunched together in one count[, are] contrary to the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 10(b).”). 

2

Case 3:10-cv-00994-WKW-CSC Document 34 Filed 05/03/11 Page 2 of 5
The Complaint is a shotgun pleading, and it violates Rule 10(b). There are no counts,

only a “Prayer for Relief.” (Compl., “Prayer for Relief” ¶ 1.) In that Prayer for Relief,

Plaintiff’s claims are crammed into a 300-word single sentence, connected by a plethora of

commas. Reading between the commas, there appear to be no less than twenty-four claims. 

But deciphering what all of those claims are, which facts are meant to support which claim,

and how each Defendant is liable is an insurmountable task for several reasons. First, the

string citations of claims are introduced by a solitary phrase, “Based on the factual

allegations stated in this complaint, Plaintiff . . . requests that all defendants named herein

be found jointly and severally liable for . . . .” (Compl., “Prayer for Relief,” ¶ 1.) Because

every allegation is incorporated into every claim set out in the Prayer for Relief, Plaintiff’s

Complaint presents “a perfect example of ‘shotgun’ pleading.” Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of

Trustees of Cent. Fla. Comty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996). 

Second, as to the federal law claims specifically, there are only legal conclusions, for

example, of “discrimination against a disabled person,” “discrimination in the terms,

conditions or privileges of a sale or rental of a dwelling,” and “acts of coercion, threats, and

intimidation, and interference.” (Compl., “Prayer for Relief,” ¶ 1.) There is no hint in the

Prayer for Relief about which facts support which claims or what acts or omissions

Defendants committed.

Third, where the federal law claims end and the state law claims begin is not clear. 

The initial five claims specifically reference federal statutes; however, those five claims are

followed by what are best characterized as rants about the mistreatment Plaintiff allegedly

3

Case 3:10-cv-00994-WKW-CSC Document 34 Filed 05/03/11 Page 3 of 5
endured, to include allegations of multiple instances of “harassment,” “misuse of federal

funds,” “failure to provide a fair hearing over a grievance arising from a malfunctioning

toilet,” and “failure to fulfill an ongoing duty to inspect and repair the premises.” (Compl.,

“Prayer for Relief,” ¶ 1.) Plaintiff provides no indication of what type of claim, if any, she

is making based upon these allegations. 

Fourth, there is a clear violation of the organizational requirements of Rule 10(b). It

is evident from the “Factual Allegations” section of the Complaint that many of the claims

are predicated on discrete acts committed between June 15, 2009, and November 22, 2010. 

Yet, there are no separate counts for separate occurrences. Instead, all claims are lumped

together in a rambling sentence under the heading of “Prayer for Relief.” Plaintiff’s prayer

goes unanswered for not even the Divine would be able to divine what it is Plaintiff seeks. 

 It is the plaintiff’s job “to present h[er] claims discretely and succinctly, so that h[er]

adversary can discern what [s]he is claiming and frame a responsive pleading.” Davis, 516

F.3d at 980 n.57 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). When a plaintiff fails to

perform her job and the defendant does not move for a more definite statement pursuant to

Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1 see Davis, 516 F.3d at 983, the district

court has “the inherent authority to demand repleader sua sponte,” Magluta v. Samples, 256

F.3d 1282, 1284 n.3 (11th Cir. 2001) (italics added). The court exercises that authority here. 

1

 Three Defendants have moved to dismiss the claims against them for failure to state a claim for

which relief can be granted, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. # 26.) In light of the findings herein, that

motion will be denied.

4

Case 3:10-cv-00994-WKW-CSC Document 34 Filed 05/03/11 Page 4 of 5
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is GRANTED until May 13, 2011, to file

an amended complaint that comports with the pleading requirements. Failure to file an

amended complaint by this deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 26) is DENIED.

DONE this 3rd day of May, 2011. 

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

Case 3:10-cv-00994-WKW-CSC Document 34 Filed 05/03/11 Page 5 of 5