1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

BOBBY L. TACKETT, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-1134 

 Judge Watson 

 Magistrate Judge King 

BANK OF AMERICA, NA, 

 Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, 

filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, Motion to Stop Sale 

of Home, Doc. No. 2, which the Court also deemed to serve as the 

complaint. Order, Doc. No. 6. Defendant filed a motion for a more 

definite statement, Defendants’ [sic] Motion for a More Definite 

Statement, Doc. No. 8, and plaintiff filed a response, Re: Order for 

More Definite Statement, Doc. No. 10. The Court construed plaintiff’s 

response as a more definite statement, but directed plaintiff to file 

an amended complaint because his response did not contain a short and 

plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction. Order, 

Doc. No. 11. Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint. 

Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 13. 

This matter is before the Court on defendant’s second motion for 

a more definite statement. Defendants’ [sic] Motion for a More 

Definite Statement as to Defendant’s [sic] Amended Complaint 

(“Defendant’s Motion”), Doc. No. 14. Defendant argues that the 

Amended Complaint “fails to adhere to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

Case: 2:12-cv-01134-MHW-NMK Doc #: 19 Filed: 06/19/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

8(a)(2) and 8(d)(1) and 10(b)” such that defendant “cannot reasonably 

be required to frame an answer or other respons[ive] pleading.” 

Defendant’s Motion, p. 1. Plaintiff has not filed a response to 

Defendant’s Motion. 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ̔a short 

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled 

to relief,’ in order to ̔give the defendant fair notice of what 

the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007) (quoting Conley v. 

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). “If a pleading fails to specify the 

allegations in a manner that provides sufficient notice, a defendant 

can move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) before 

responding.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002). 

Motions for a more definite statement are, however, generally 

disfavored, Shirk v. Fifth Third Bancorp, No. 05-cv-49, 2008 WL 

4449024, at *8 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2008) (citations and quotations 

omitted), and “should not be granted unless the complaint is so 

excessively vague and ambiguous as to be unintelligible and as to 

prejudice the defendant seriously in attempting to answer it.” Id. 

(citations and quotations omitted). See also Joslin v. Metro 

Nashville/Davidson Cnty., 3:12-cv-1284, 2013 WL 2250712, at *6 (M.D. 

Tenn., May 21, 2013) (quoting E.E.O.C. v. FPM Grp., Ltd., 657 

F.Supp.2d 957 (E.D. Tenn. 2009)). 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is two pages long, alleges that the 

Court has federal question jurisdiction, and purports to bring claims 

under only state law. Although the Amended Complaint does not 

Case: 2:12-cv-01134-MHW-NMK Doc #: 19 Filed: 06/19/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

strictly comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b), the 

Court finds that it is not “so excessively vague and ambiguous as to 

be unintelligible and as to prejudice the defendant seriously in 

attempting to answer it.” See Boco Enters., Inc. v. Selective Ins. 

Co. of S.C., No. 11-13962, 2012 WL 4476510, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 

28, 2012) (citations and quotations omitted). 

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion, Doc. No. 14, is DENIED. 

June 19, 2013 s/Norah McCann King_______ 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-01134-MHW-NMK Doc #: 19 Filed: 06/19/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>