IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRA BETTS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0356-CG-N

)

CONECUH COUNTY BOARD OF 

EDUCATION, RONNIE BROGDEN, 

and MARY ANN DANFORD,

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all issues raised, and there having been 

no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated December 10, 2014, is ADOPTED as the 

opinion of this Court.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively for More 

Definite Statement (Doc. 7) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is 

ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion is GRANTED with respect to 

Plaintiff’s Title VII claims against Superintendent Ronnie Brogden and Mary Ann 

Danford, both individually and as agents of the Conecuh County Board of 

Education; her claims for retaliation brought solely under § 1983; her claims for 

punitive damages under both Title VII and § 1983 against the Conecuh County 

Board of Education, and for punitive damages under §§ 1981 and 1983 against 

Superintendent Ronnie Brogden and Mary Ann Danford in their official capacities; 

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 17 Filed 12/30/14 Page 1 of 3
2

and her § 1983 claims (including her merged § 1981 claims) against Superintendent 

Ronnie Brogden and Mary Ann Danford in their official capacities. Therefore, said 

claims are DISMISSED. The Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in all 

other respects is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 12(e) motion for more definite 

statement is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint not 

later than January 12, 2015. Plaintiff’s shall adhere to the following standards

in repleading her complaint:

1. Betts shall omit mention of any claim that is dismissed by this Order.

2. She shall refrain from incorporating multiple causes of action into one 

count, as well as from the wholesale adoption by reference of all antecedent 

allegations into each subsequent cause of action. Instead, she must list each 

discrete cause of action (e.g., “disparate impact under Title VII,” “hostile work 

environment under Title VII,” “retaliation under § 1981”) in a separate count and 

identify with specificity the factual allegations used to support each discrete claim 

against each individual Defendant.1

3. In being ordered to replead under Rule 12(e), Betts is not being granted 

leave to amend her complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Thus, 

 1 Though Betts invokes the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, in the opening 

of her Complaint, she does not assert a separate cause of action under it, and from the allegations 

in her Complaint it appears that she seeks a “declaratory judgment” only as one of several forms 

of relief on her Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983 actions. 

Plaintiff shall set forth a discrete count asserting a cause of action under the Declaratory 

Judgment Act if she indeed wishes to do so. Otherwise, she shall omit reference to the 

Declaratory Judgment Act on repleader.

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 17 Filed 12/30/14 Page 2 of 3
3

she shall not use this as an opportunity to add new claims and/or parties which are 

not apparent from the allegations in her initial Complaint (Doc. 1). Cf. Washington 

v. Util. Trailer Mfg. Co., No. 1:13-CV-610-WEF, 2014 WL 2831189, at *5 n.5 (M.D. 

Ala. June 23, 2014) (“Plaintiffs may not use this order to re-plead Count I as an 

opportunity to add new claims.”).

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Order by January 12, 2015, will result 

in the remaining claims pending in the plaintiff’s complaint being stricken and this 

action being dismissed for failure to prosecute.

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of December, 2014.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 17 Filed 12/30/14 Page 3 of 3