Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-00701/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-00701-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

Wesley Simmons and Sharon Simmons,

husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Navajo County, State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-701-PCT-DGC

ORDER

Defendants have filed a motion for more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. #6. Plaintiffs have filed a response and

Defendants have filed a reply. Docs. ##9-10. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will

deny the motion.

I. Background.

Plaintiffs allege that negligence and civil rights violations caused the wrongful death

of their son, Jasper Simmons, by suicide, while he was detained at the Navajo County Jail.

Doc. #1, Ex. A ¶ 1. Plaintiffs have named Navajo County and its governing board, the

county sheriff, the county jail commander, eight officers employed at the jail, and jail

medical staff personnel as Defendants. Id. at ¶¶3-17. 

Plaintiffs allege that Jasper Simmons died on July 2, 2005, while on suicide watch at

the jail. Id. at ¶¶46, 65. Plaintiffs further allege that (1) their son hung himself with medical

gauze, (2) his cell had not been adequately searched because the gauze used for the suicide

had last been used two weeks earlier, (3) jail policy requires checks on suicide watch

Case 3:06-cv-00701-DGC Document 12 Filed 07/11/06 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 -

detainees every fifteen minutes, (4) jail staff had last observed the decedent more than an

hour before he was found dead, (5) the jail was understaffed, (6) the decedent was not

provided an adequate suicide-prevention cell, and (7) he did not receive daily face-to-face

mental health evaluations. Id. at ¶¶ 41, 49, 51-57, 59-62, 67, 108-11.

II. Discussion.

If a complaint is “so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required

to frame a responsive pleading, the [defendant] may move for a more definite statement” by

pointing out the defects complained of and the details desired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). A

complaint in federal court, however, need include only a “‘short and plain statement’ . . . that

will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which

it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)).

Accordingly, motions for more definite statements are not favored and “strike at

unintelligibility rather than want of detail.” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dean, 854 F. Supp.

626, 649 (D. Ariz. 1994). Rule 12(e) is “‘not to be used to assist in getting facts in

preparation for trial as such; other rules relating to discovery . . . exist for such purposes.’”

Castillo v. Norton, 219 F.R.D. 155, 163 (D. Ariz. 2003) (quoting Sheffield v. Orius Corp.,

211 F.R.D. 411, 415 (D. Ore. 2002)).

Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have only identified one individual defendant, the

officer who allegedly engaged in insufficient checks, as having done something directly

related to the suicide. Doc. #6 at 3. Defendants request more detail as to what each

individual defendant did, or failed to do, that gives rise to liability. Id. at 5. To support this

request, Defendants cite McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996), in which the Ninth

Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss a complaint. In McHenry, the fiftythree page complaint, after two amendments, still seemed more like a “press release, prolix

in evidentiary detail,” than a pleading. Id. at 1180. The complaint did not reveal “who [was]

was being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery.”

Id. at 1178.

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-00701-DGC Document 12 Filed 07/11/06 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 -

Plaintiffs’ complaint, by contrast, complies with Rule 8(a). It contains a short and

plain description of the claims. The alleged facts and claims are sufficiently detailed to guide

discovery. Indeed, Defendants’ restatement of the complaint in their motion shows that they

understand the claims and the allegation that each individual defendant had “supervisory

authority” or “some responsibility” for inmate care. See Doc. #6 at 2-3. 

“[A]t the pleading stage (i.e. prior to discovery occurring) a plaintiff frequently lacks

the actual details concerning supervisors’ interactions with employees.” McGrath v. Scott,

250 F.Supp.2d 1218, 1227 (D.Ariz. 2003). Details about who acted or failed to act in

relation to the claims can appropriately be found through discovery. See Resolution Trust

Corp., 854 F. Supp. at 649 (finding that confusion or ambiguity of individual involvement

in an act committed by a group could be resolved through discovery). 

The motion for a more definite statement will be denied because Defendants can

reasonably frame a response to the complaint and additional detail can be obtained through

discovery. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement (Doc. #6)

is denied.

DATED this 11th day of July, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-00701-DGC Document 12 Filed 07/11/06 Page 3 of 3