IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRA BETTS, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00356-CG-N

)

CONECUH COUNTY BOARD OF )

EDUCATION, RONNIE BROGDEN, and )

MARY ANN DANFORD, )

Defendants. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action is before the Court on the Defendants’ "Motion to Dismiss 

Amended Complaint” (Doc. 20) brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) or, alternatively, Rule 41(b). The Plaintiff, Terra Betts (“Betts”), has timely 

filed a response in opposition (Doc. 22) to the motion, and the Defendants have 

timely filed a reply (Doc. 23) to the response. The motion is now under submission 

and is ripe for adjudication. (See Doc. 21). 

The motion has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate 

Judge for entry of a report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) 

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1). Upon consideration, the undersigned 

RECOMMENDS that the Defendants’ "Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint” 

(Doc. 20) be DENIED; that Betts’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 19) be STRICKEN

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) and that Betts be given one final

opportunity to re-plead in accordance with the Court’s Order dated December 30, 

2014 (Doc. 17).

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 16
2

I. Applicable Legal Standards

In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for “failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted,” the Court construes the complaint in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff, “accepting all well-pleaded facts that are 

alleged therein to be true.” Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc., 715 F.3d 1257, 1265 

(11th Cir. 2013) (citing Bickley v. Caremark RX, Inc., 461 F.3d 1325, 1328 (11th Cir.

2006)). “ ‘To survive ... a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted 

as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” ’ ” Id. (quoting 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 570 (2007))). “The plausibility standard ‘calls for enough fact to raise a 

reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence’ of the defendant's 

liability.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “While a complaint attacked by a 

Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a 

plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires 

more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action will not do.” Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1289 

(11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

[T]he Court held[ in Iqbal] that the tenet that a court must accept as 

true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to 

legal conclusions. Second, restating the plausibility standard, the 

Court held that where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to 

infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has 

alleged—but it has not shown—that the pleader is entitled to relief. 

The Court suggested that courts considering motions to dismiss adopt 

a “two-pronged approach” in applying these principles: 1) eliminate 

any allegations in the complaint that are merely legal conclusions; and 

2) where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, assume their 

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 2 of 16
3

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an 

entitlement to relief. Importantly, the Court held in Iqbal, as it had in 

Twombly, that courts may infer from the factual allegations in the 

complaint obvious alternative explanations, which suggest lawful 

conduct rather than the unlawful conduct the plaintiff would ask the 

court to infer.

Id. at 1290 (citations and quotations omitted).

Rule 41(b) provides: “For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to 

comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move 

for dismissal of an action or of any claim against him.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(b)...

...

...[A] dismissal with prejudice...is an extreme sanction that may be 

properly imposed only when: “(1) a party engages in a clear pattern of 

delay or willful contempt (contumacious conduct); and (2) the district 

court specifically finds that lesser sanctions would not suffice.” World 

Thrust Films[ Inc. v. Int'l Family Entm't, Inc.], 41 F.3d [1454,] 1456[ 

((11th Cir. 1995)]; accord Gratton v. Great Am. Commc'ns., 178 F.3d 

1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999); Mingo v. Sugar Cane Growers Co-op. of 

Fla., 864 F.2d 101, 102 (11th Cir. 1989); Cohen v. Carnival Cruise 

Lines, Inc., 782 F.2d 923, 924–25 (11th Cir. 1986); Goforth[ v. Owens],

766 F.2d [1533,] 1535[ (11th Cir.1985)]; Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 

1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983); Gonzalez[ v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.], 

610 F.2d [241,] 247[ (5th Cir. 1980)]; Hildebrand[ v. Honeywell, Inc.], 

622 F.2d [179,] 181[ (5th Cir. 1980)]; Boazman v. Econ. Lab., Inc., 537 

F.2d 210, 212–13 (5th Cir. 1976). Moreover, the harsh sanction of 

dismissal with prejudice is thought to be more appropriate in a case 

where a party, as distinct from counsel, is culpable. Gratton, 178 F.3d 

at 1375.

Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 2005).1

 1 “[W]here the dismissal [under Rule 41(b)] is without prejudice, but the applicable statute 

of limitations probably bars further litigation, the standard of review of the District Court's 

dismissal should be the same as is used when reviewing a dismissal with prejudice.” 

Boazman v. Econ. Lab., Inc., 537 F.2d 210, 213 (5th Cir. 1976) (citing Pond v. Braniff 

Airways, Inc., 453 F.2d 347 (5th Cir. 1972). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 

1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc) (adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the 

former Fifth Circuit issued on or before September 30, 1981). Here, Betts may be barred 

from refiling, at least, any dismissed Title VII claims, as a Title VII plaintiff must “file[] his 

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 3 of 16
4

II. Applicable Background

Betts initiated this action on July 31, 2014, by filing a Complaint with the 

Court alleging claims against Defendants Conecuh County Board of Education (“the 

Board”), Ronnie Brogden, superintendent of the Conecuh County school system 

(“Superintendent Brogden”), and Mary Ann Danford, Curriculum 

Coordinator/Counselor Coordinator for the Conecuh County school system 

(“Danford”). (See Doc. 1). The Defendants challenged the initial Complaint by filing 

a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for more definite statement (Doc. 7) under 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(e), respectively. On December 30, 

2014, the Court, adopting the recommendations of the undersigned (Doc. 16), 

granted that motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing certain claims and 

ordering Betts to file an amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(e) conforming to 

certain standards. (Doc. 17). Betts timely filed her Amended Complaint (Doc. 19). 

The following well-pleaded factual allegations in the Amended Complaint are 

accepted as true for purposes of the present motion:

Betts, an African-American, has been employed with the Board for 

thirteen (13) years, having first been hired in 2001. At all times 

relevant to the claims in this action, Betts has been employed in the 

capacity of Guidance Counselor, a position in which she has served for 

the past eight (8) years. Betts has an undergraduate degree from 

Alabama State University (ASU) in Elementary Education, a graduate 

degree (Masters in Counseling) from ASU, and an Ed.S in school 

counseling from ASU/Auburn University Montgomery, jointly. (Id. at 

3-4, ¶ 9).

Defendant Ronnie Brogden (“Superintendent Brogden”) is 

superintendent of the Conecuh County school system. Defendant Mary 

 

Complaint within ninety days of his receipt of the EEOC's right-to-sue letter.” Green v. 

Union Foundry Co., 281 F.3d 1229, 1233 (11th Cir. 2002).

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 4 of 16
5

Ann Danford (“Danford”) is employed with the Conecuh County school 

system in the Central Office in the capacity of Curriculum 

Coordinator/Counselor Coordinator. Danford is not certified in 

counseling. Both Superintendent Brogden and Danford are white. (Id.

at 4, ¶¶ 10-11).

On or about December 12, 2012, Betts was served with a “Notice of 

Recommendation of Termination of Employment” (hereinafter, the 

“Termination Recommendation Notice”) signed by Superintendent 

Brogden. The Termination Recommendation Notice alleged 

“insubordination, incompetency, neglect of duty, failure to perform 

duties in a satisfactory manner, and/or other good and just cause....” 

Betts challenged the recommendation, and after a two day hearing 

commencing on February 12, 2013, Betts was reinstated to her 

employment. Betts returned to work on February 14, 2013. Though 

both Danford and Superintendent Brogden testified that they had not 

undertaken any efforts to replace Betts, Annette Bohannon, who is 

white, had already moved into Betts’s office. (Id., ¶ 12).

Upon her return to work, Betts submitted a correspondence to 

Superintendent Brogden demanding a work environment at Hillcrest 

High School free of any acts of retaliation, intimidation and hostility. 

On or about June 4, 2013, Superintendent Brogden submitted a 

“Notice of Recommendation of Transfer” (hereinafter, the “Transfer 

Recommendation Notice”) to her and the Board. The Board ratified 

the recommendation and transferred Betts to Evergreen Elementary 

School. (Id. at 5, ¶ 13).

In or about July 2013, Superintendent Brogden filed a complaint with 

the State of Alabama Department of Education requesting a “proposed 

revocation and non-renewal of Alabama professional Educator 

Certificate” against Betts. Superintendent Brogden’s request and 

recommendation tracked verbatim the language of his December 12, 

2012 Termination Recommendation Notice. (Id.).

Based on the preceding factual allegations, Betts asserts the following causes 

of action against the Defendants:

• Counts 1 & 2 (against the Board only) – discriminatory disparate treatment 

on the basis of race (Count 1), and unlawful retaliation (Count 2), in violation 

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as 

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 5 of 16
6

amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a (“Title VII”). 

(Doc. 19 at 6-7).

• Count 3 (against Superintendent Brogden and Danford, in their individual 

capacities (see id. at 3, ¶¶ 7-8)) – discrimination on the basis of race and 

ethnicity “in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States that 

secure and guarantee to her the equal protection of the law as enforced by 

Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983,” 2 based on the “Termination 

Recommendation Notice” and Annette Bohannon having been “moved into 

the plaintiff’s office...” (See Doc. 19 at 8-9).

• Count 4 (incorrectly labeled as a second “Third Federal Cause of Action”) 

(against Superintendent Brogden only, in his individual capacity (see id. at 3, 

¶ 7)) – retaliation under §§ 1981 and 1983 for Betts “having successfully 

defended the his proposed termination of her employment to Conecuh County 

Board of Education and her having filed a Charge of Discrimination with the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.” (See id. at 9-10).

III. Analysis

A. Twombly-Iqbal

The Defendants argue, as they did for the initial Complaint, that the 

Amended Complaint is due to be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because it does not 

 2 “The Civil Rights Act of 1866, or Section 1981, guarantees ‘all persons ... the same right ... 

to make and enforce contracts ... as is enjoyed by white citizens,’ and it also protects against 

race-based employment discrimination and retaliation. The Civil Rights Act of 1871, or 

Section 1983, prohibits state actors from acting in violation of federal law.” Thomas v. 

Autauga Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. 2:12-CV-971-WKW, 2014 WL 1491199, at *8 (M.D. Ala. 

Apr. 15, 2014).

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 6 of 16
7

satisfy the pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 as interpreted in

Twombly and Iqbal. They argue that, “like the original complaint, many of its 

allegations are so vague and general that it also dodges the requirements of Rule 

12(b)(6) [sic3][,]” asserting that “[t]he claims alleged in the amended complaint allow 

nothing but speculation, which Defendants cannot reasonably answer.” (Doc. 20 at 

2-3).

Betts scoffs at the idea of “the so-called heighten standard of pleading that 

counsel for the defendants have so much belabored[,]” asserting that “a Court 

should dismiss a complaint only if it appears to a certainty and it is clear that the 

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim, which would entitle 

him or her to relief and prove consistent with his allegations.” (Doc. 22 at 1-2). 

Contrary to Betts’s (and her counsel’s) belief, the Twombly-Iqbal pleading standard 

is very real, applies to all civil actions (including Title VII4 and § 19835 actions), and 

has “expressly ‘retired’ the ‘no set of facts’ pleading standard” which Betts 

advocates. Am. Dental Ass'n, 605 F.3d at 1288 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563).

Nevertheless, the undersigned is not convinced that the Amended Complaint 

is deficient for failing to “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Miyahira, 715 F.3d at 1265

 3 As discussed in Twombly and Iqbal, Rule 8 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, not 

Rule 12(b)(6), sets forth the requirements for pleading. Rule 12(b)(6) is simply the vehicle 

for dismissal should Rule 8’s requirements not be met. See Am. Dental Ass'n, 605 F.3d at 

1290 (“[T]he Court in Iqbal explicitly held that the Twombly plausibility standard applies 

to all civil actions...because it is an interpretation of Rule 8.”).

4 See, e.g., Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 974 (11th Cir. 2008).

5 See, e.g., Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 708-10 (11th Cir. 2010).

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 7 of 16
8

(quotations omitted). Twombly and Iqbal “concern the factual allegations a 

complaint must contain to survive a motion to dismiss. A plaintiff, they instruct, 

must plead facts sufficient to show that her claim has substantive plausibility.” 

Johnson v. City of Shelby, Miss., 135 S. Ct. 346, 347 (2014) (per curiam). As set 

forth supra, the Amended Complaint contains a number of non-conclusory factual 

allegations, and these allegations, accepted as true, plausibly indicate that some 

form of unlawful discrimination and/or retaliation may have occurred. Certainly, 

the Defendants offer no specific argument (either in the present motion or, as they 

claim, in their “previously filed motion to dismiss (doc. 7) and reply in support 

thereof (doc. 13)”) suggesting why Betts’s factual allegations in her Amended 

Complaint fail to support any of her stated causes of action.

As discussed infra in greater detail, the undersigned finds that the 

Defendants’ true complaint with the Amended Complaint is that it fails to 

sufficiently specify what factual allegations support each cause of action.6 “ ‘The 

remedy for an allegation lacking sufficient specificity to provide adequate notice is, 

of course, a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement.’ ” Paylor v. Hartford 

 6 This view is supported by the one specific example of so-called Twombly-Iqbal “deficiency” 

cited by the Defendants, which is simply an example of Betts’s failure to link her factual 

allegations to specific causes of action. (See Doc. 20 at 9 n.3 (“For instance, in paragraph 27 

of the amended complaint in support of her purported equal protection claim (Count III), 

Ms. Betts appears to allege that she had been replaced by a white female when she 

returned to work on February 14, 2013...However, in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the amended 

complaint, however [sic], Ms. Betts alleges that she returned to work at Hillcrest High 

School on February 14, 2014 and was transferred to Evergreen Elementary School 

sometime after June 4, 2013...If she returned to work and was eventually transferred to 

another school, Ms. Betts clearly had not been replaced by a white female as paragraph 27 

of the amended complaint appears to suggest. Defendants should not be required to 

guess the factual basis of Ms. Betts’ claims in defending this case.” (emphasis 

added)).

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 8 of 16
9

Fire Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 1117, 1127 n.4 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 590 n. 9 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (internal quotations omitted)). However, as is 

also discussed infra, Betts has already been given an opportunity to provide a more 

definite statement under Rule 12(e) but has failed to do so.

B. Failure to Obey Court’s Previous Rule 12(e) Order

The Defendants correctly point out that Betts’s Amended Complaint does not 

comply in several respects with the Court’s previous Order requiring her to re-plead 

under Rule 12(e). Betts was instructed, inter alia, to “omit mention of any claim 

that is dismissed by this Order” from her amended complaint. (Doc. 17 at 2). 

Nevertheless, the Defendants correctly note that Betts’s Amended Complaint 

includes a demand for punitive damages in her Title VII retaliation claim against 

the Board in Count 2 (Doc. 19 at 7, ¶ 25). In her response, Betts claims she 

“erroneously did not delete” this language and states she “will amend her complaint 

accordingly.” (Doc. 22 at 2, ¶ 2).

As the Defendants also correctly note, while Betts’s Amended Complaint 

makes several assertions that she has been subject to “a hostile work environment” 

(see Doc. 19 at 2, ¶ 1; 4, ¶ 11; 6, ¶ 16), “[t]here is no count for a hostile work 

environment,” (Doc. 20 at 10), nor is any allegation embedded in either of Betts’s 

Title VII counts, or incorporated in either by reference, suggesting a hostile work 

environment claim is asserted.7 8 Thus, they argue, “[a]ny purported claim for a 

 7 

As opposed to discrete acts such as termination, failure to promote, denial of 

transfer, or refusal to hire, a hostile work environment claim addresses acts 

different in kind whose very nature involves repeated conduct, such as 

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 9 of 16
10

racially hostile work environment should be dismissed.” (Doc. 20 at 10). Betts asks 

that the Court “grant her leave to amend her complaint so that she can plead 

[hostile work environment] as a separate count as per the request of the defense 

counsel.” (Doc. 22 at 2-3, ¶ 3). 

Betts, however, ignores the fact that the Court has already instructed her to 

do just that when filing her Amended Complaint – specifically, to “refrain from 

incorporating multiple causes of action into one count” and to instead “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...” 

(Doc. 17 at 2 (emphasis added)). In addition, in the undersigned’s previous Report 

and Recommendation (to which Betts filed no objections and which the Court 

 

discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult. Thus, these claims are 

based on the cumulative effect of individual acts...To establish a hostile work 

environment claim, [a plaintiff] must show: (1) that she belongs to a protected 

group; (2) that she has been subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) that the 

harassment must have been based on a protected characteristic of the 

employee; (4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to 

alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily 

abusive working environment; and (5) that the employer is responsible for 

such environment under either a theory of vicarious or of direct liability.

McCann v. Tillman, 526 F.3d 1370, 1378 (11th Cir. 2008) (citations and quotations 

omitted).

8 Cf. Dalton v. Burwell, No. 14-13654 (11th Cir. March 6, 2015) (per curiam) (unpublished) 

(slip opinion) (“The seven claims Dalton says the District Court should have recognized in 

her initial complaint were not asserted as discrete claims; rather, they were nothing 

more than allegations in the complaint’s ‘Statement of Facts.’ The EEO did not 

perceive as discrete claims the seven claims she says her initial complaint ‘factually’ 

presented. The seven claims first appeared as discrete claims in the defendants’ motion to 

dismiss, as part of their argument that the claims had not been exhausted. Dalton concedes 

that she never presented the claims, as discrete claims, to the EEO or otherwise put the 

EEO on notice that it should investigate them, even though the EEO asked her to identify 

any claims beyond those discretely asserted that it ought to investigate.” (emphasis added)).

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 10 of 16
11

adopted in full) specifically noted that, due to the “shotgun” nature of Betts’s initial 

Complaint, “it is unclear whether Betts is alleging claims for hostile work 

environment under Title VII and/or §§ 1981 and 1983.”9 (Doc. 16 at 25). Despite 

this admonition, and despite being specifically ordered to plead each discrete claim 

(such as hostile work environment) as a separate count, Betts failed to do so, and 

only now, after being called out for it by the Defendants a second time, finally offers 

to do so.10

Finally, in ordering re-pleading, the Court specifically instructed Betts to 

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

against each individual Defendant.” (Doc. 17 at 2). This requirement too resulted 

from the “shotgun” nature of Betts initial Complaint, which incorporated every 

antecedent allegation by reference into each subsequent claim for relief. (See Doc. 

16 at 21-22). In apparent response to this requirement, Betts simply deleted from 

each count those paragraphs purporting to “adopt by reference, and incorporate in 

[each] cause of action” all proceeding allegations (see Doc. 1 at 6-8), but made no 

 9 The Defendants argue that Betts’s “purported claim for a racially hostile work 

environment” in her Amended Complaint should be dismissed because it violates the 

Court’s re-pleader Order forbade her from “asserting new claims in her amended complaint.” 

(Doc. 20 at 1-2). The precise language of the re-pleader Order forbade Betts from “add[ing] 

new claims and/or parties which are not apparent from the allegations in her initial 

Complaint (Doc. 1).” (Doc. 17). While it was “unclear” whether Betts was alleging a claim 

for hostile work environment in her initial complaint, the undersigned finds that a hostile 

work environment claim was at least somewhat “apparent from the allegations in her 

initial Complaint.” Thus, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the motion to dismiss 

(Doc. 20) be DENIED as to this argument.

10 The undersigned notes that the deadline for the filing of motions to amend pleadings –

February 2, 2015 – has passed in this action. (See Doc. 16 at 3-4, § 6). Betts’s response to 

the instant motion was filed after this deadline (see Doc. 22), and she has not moved to 

amend the scheduling order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) (“A schedule may be modified only 

for good cause and with the judge’s consent.”).

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 11 of 16
12

effort to obey the Court’s instructions by specifying which preceding factual 

allegations support each count. 

Count I cites no specific factual assertions at all. Counts II and IV simply 

assert that unspecified “actions” of the Defendants “as alleged herein” constitute 

unlawful retaliation. (Doc. 19 at 7, 9). Only Count III arguably attempts to identify 

specific factual allegations in support, as Betts has simply copies paragraph 12 of 

the Amended Complaint and pastes it verbatim into Count III as paragraph 27. As 

to the other counts, however, Betts failure specify or incorporate any specific factual 

allegations supporting each cause of action causes essentially the same problem as 

incorporating every factual allegation into every cause of action – “it is virtually 

impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) 

for relief.” Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 366 

(11th Cir. 1996).

Rule 12(e) provides: “If the court orders a more definite statement and the 

order is not obeyed within 14 days after notice of the order or within the time the 

court sets, the court may strike the pleading or issue any other appropriate 

order” (emphasis added). The Court’s re-pleader Order expressly warned Betts 

that “failure to comply with this Order...will result in the remaining claims pending 

in the plaintiff’s complaint being stricken and this action being dismissed for failure 

to prosecute.” (Doc. 17 at 3).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits a court, either on motion or sua 

sponte, “to dismiss [an] action or any claim” for failure to obey a court order. See 

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 12 of 16
13

Betty K Agencies, 432 F.3d at 1337. Moreover, the Court has “inherent...authority 

to enforce its orders and insure prompt disposition of lawsuits.” Goforth v. Owens, 

766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 

626, 630–31 (1962); Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983)). See 

also Sciarretta v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., -- F.3d --, No. 13-12559, 2015 WL 

795593, at *6 (11th Cir. Feb. 26, 2015) (“Courts have the inherent power to police 

themselves and those appearing before them.” (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 

501 U.S. 32, 46 (1991)). This “inherent power” “carries with it the authority to 

assess attorney's fees as a sanction for bad faith conduct.” Sciarretta, 2015 WL 

795593, at *6. See also Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1545-46 (11th 

Cir. 1993) (“A court may appropriately sanction a party or attorney who ‘shows bad 

faith by delaying or disrupting the litigation or by hampering enforcement of a court 

order.’ ” (quoting Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 689 n.14 (1978)). “[D]ismissal for 

failure to comply with the rules of court” is also an option under this inherent 

authority. Betty K Agencies, 432 F.3d at 1337. The Court has discretion in 

exercising this authority, meaning that it “has a ‘range of choice, and that its 

decision will not be disturbed as long as it stays within that range and is not 

influenced by any mistake of law.’ ” Id. (quoting Guideone Elite Ins. Co. v. Old 

Cutler Presbyterian Church, Inc., 420 F.3d 1317, 1324 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal 

quotation marks omitted)). Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 1927 gives a court discretion 

to require an attorney “who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably 

and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, 

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 13 of 16
14

expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” See 

Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny's, Inc., 500 F.3d 1230, 1239 (11th Cir. 2007).

The Court previously ordered a more definite statement, providing specific 

instructions for Betts to follow in doing so (see Doc. 17). As detailed supra, Betts 

has failed to obey that Order on multiple and significant fronts, making it apparent 

that she and her counsel gave, at best, perfunctory consideration to that Order. 

Nevertheless, at this stage of the litigation, it is not apparent that this failure 

amounts to more than mere negligence, which, standing alone, will not support a 

finding of bad faith necessary to impose sanctions under § 1927 and/or the Court’s 

inherent power. Amlong & Amlong, 500 F.3d at 1242 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[T]hat is, 

an attorney's conduct will not warrant sanctions if it simply fails to meet the 

standard of conduct expected from a reasonable attorney.”). A “clear pattern of 

delay or willful contempt (contumacious conduct)” is also not apparent at this time 

to warrant dismissal, nor is it apparent “that lesser sanctions would not suffice.”11 

 11 The Defendants have cited Harrison v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia, 

519 F. App'x 641 (11th Cir. May 17, 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished), in support of their 

position that Betts should not be accorded “a second bite at the apple.” That case, however, 

is distinguishable. In Harrison, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal 

with prejudice of a pro se plaintiff’s employment discrimination action, finding:

The record indicates that Harrison willfully violated the court's instructions 

regarding the filing of his second amended complaint. Despite specific 

instructions to the contrary, the second amended complaint contained 

conclusory legal allegations, did not allege specific facts in support of the 

distinct causes of action, and, at 82 pages and 295 paragraphs in length, 

could not be characterized as “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Additionally, Harrison's ability to submit a proposed third amended 

complaint that was less than half the length of the second and identified 

specific facts in support of at least some of the counts demonstrates his 

failure to do so in the first instance was a willful violation of the court's order.

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 14 of 16
15

Betty K Agencies, 432 F.3d at 1337. As such, the undersigned finds the most 

appropriate course of action at this time is to strike Betts’s Amended Complaint 

(Doc. 19) under Rule 12(e) and to give her one last opportunity to file an amended 

pleading that complies with the Court’s previous Order (Doc. 17).12

IV. Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the undersigned RECOMMENDS

that the Defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint” (Doc. 20) be 

DENIED; that Betts’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 19) be STRICKEN and that Betts 

be ORDERED to again re-plead under Rule 12(e) in accordance with the 

instructions set out in the Court’s December 30, 2014 Order (Doc. 17).

 

519 F. App'x at 643. Betts’s Amended Complaint is not so egregiously non-compliant as the 

second amended complaint in Harrison, nor is there any indication on the record that 

Betts’s non-compliance was a willful violation, as opposed to mere negligence.

12 As they did in challenging the initial Complaint, the Defendants have objected to 

Betts’s reference to the actions of the Board “and its individual members” in Count II of the 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 19 at 7, ¶ 20), arguing that “any claim against ‘individual 

members’ of the Board is due to be dismissed.” (Doc. 20 at 12). 

The undersigned previously recommended: “To the extent the Board members are 

being sued in their official capacities and as agents of the Board, such claims are redundant 

of Betts’s claims against the Board itself and are due to be DISMISSED. To the extent the 

Board members are being sued in their individual capacities under Title VII, such claims 

are also due to be DISMISSED. To the extent Betts alleges a claim of retaliation against 

the Board members in their individual capacities under § 1981 by way of § 1983, the Board 

members individually have neither been properly served nor listed in the title of the 

complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the 

parties...”) and thus are currently not considered parties to this action.” (Doc. 16 at 19-20). 

The Court adopted this recommendation. (Doc. 17).

In her response to the present motion, Betts states that her “amended complaint 

simply referenced the actions of the individual Board members in ‘rubber stamping the 

actions of the Superintendent’ ” and does “not assert any individual claims in her Title VII 

cause of action against the Board members.” (Doc. 22 at 2). The undersigned accepts this 

representation as true under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Moreover, the individual 

Board members remain unserved and are not listed in the title of the Amended Complaint.

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 15 of 16
16

V. Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the 

manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or 

anything in it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this 

document, file specific written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. L.R. 72.4. In order to be specific, an 

objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is 

made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate 

Judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An 

objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

Magistrate Judge is not specific.

DONE this the 9th day of March 2015.

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 24 Filed 03/09/15 Page 16 of 16