Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00368/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00368-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

E.g., Wagner v. First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp., 464 F.3d 1273, 1279 (11th

Cir. 2006).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 06-0368-WS-M

 )

MARENGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S )

DEPARTMENT, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendants Langley, Reese,

Lawrence, Leonard, Sanders and Huckabee for a more definite statement. (Doc. 20). The

movants have filed a brief in support, (Doc. 21), and the plaintiff has elected not to

respond. (Doc. 22).

All actions filed in federal court are subject to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

8(a) and 10(b). When a plaintiff’s departure from these rules is so egregious that “a party

cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading,” the Court on motion may

require the filing of an amended complaint that provides a “ more definite statement” of

the allegations and claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). 

The complaint is a fair example of the shotgun pleading routinely condemned by

the Eleventh Circuit as violative of Rules 8(a) and 10(b) and meriting relief under Rule

12(e).1

 Each of the eight counts indiscriminately incorporates by reference every single

preceding allegation, even though it is clear that not all paragraphs relate to every count. 

Moreover, Count One is labeled as “Violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983: Arrest,” but the

succeeding paragraphs address the seizure of evidence (not arrest), the existence of a

Case 2:06-cv-00368-WS-M Document 34 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 2
2

Stylistically, the complaint violates several local rules, including those governing

line spacing and font. Local Rule 5.1(a). The complaint’s inclusion of legal citations is

distracting and unnecessary. 

3

Civil rights actions in which qualified immunity may provide a defense are

subject, beyond Rules 8(a) and 10(b), to a “heightened pleading” standard. Allegations

that do not satisfy the heightened pleading threshold may not be considered in ruling on a

defendant’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of qualified immunity. E.g., Gonzalez v.

Reno, 325 F.3d 1228, 1235 (11th Cir. 2003). The movants argue that the complaint does

not meet the heightened pleading standard but, absent a motion to dismiss on qualified

immunity grounds, the Court need not address the argument at this time. 

-2-

conspiracy (actionable, if at all, under Section 1985, not Section 1983), and unexplained

citations to Sections 1986 and 1988. Count Seven includes no ad damnum clause and

fails to identify which defendants are being sued. Most of the remaining counts, while

purporting to seek recovery from “all Defendants,” largely fail to identify the conduct that

renders any defendant liable; indeed, the complaint appears to contain no factual

allegations whatsoever with respect to defendants Langley, Lawrence and Leonard save

for their place of employment. These examples are illustrative only and do not exhaust

the complaint’s deficiencies.2

“When faced with a shotgun pleading, the trial court, whether or not requested to

do so by the party’s adversary, ought to require the party to file a repleader.” United

States ex rel. Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 1350, 1354 n.6 (11th Cir. 2006). Accordingly,

the motion for more definite statement is granted. The plaintiff is ordered to file and

serve an amended complaint on or before March 1, 2007, or suffer the striking of his

complaint as provided by Rule 12(e).3

 

DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of February, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00368-WS-M Document 34 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 2