Opinion ID: 765358
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Differences Between the Complaint and the Appeal

Text: 13 Rule 8(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits plaintiffs to plead two or more statements of a claim, even within the same count, regardless of consistency. Henry v. Daytop Village, Inc., 42 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 1994). The flexibility afforded by Rule 8(e)(2) is especially appropriate in civil rights cases, in which complex inquiries into the parties' intent may sometimes justify raising multiple, inconsistent claims. Id. In his complaint, Adler alleged in separately numbered allegations that he was fired due to political patronage and that he was fired in retaliation for his wife's lawsuit. Although these allegations were not specifically pleaded as in the alternative, we have ruled that Rule 8(e)(2) offers sufficient latitude to construe separate allegations in a complaint as alternative theories, at least when drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party as we must do in reviewing orders granting motions to dismiss or for summary judgment. See MacFarlane v. Grasso, 696 F.2d 217, 224-25 (2d Cir. 1982); see also Daytop, 42 F.3d at 94. 14 Moreover, during the preliminary injunction hearing, which occurred shortly after the filing of the complaint, Adler's attorney twice declared--although not very clearly--that the patronage and retaliation claims were pled in the alternative. Furthermore, in opposition to the state officials' motion for summary judgment, Adler asserted the position now taken on appeal--that his political affiliation played no role in his firing and that the defendants were motivated to fire him solely in retaliation for his wife's litigation. 15 Under these circumstances, we conclude that Adler is entitled to pursue his retaliation claim as an alternative to his abandoned political patronage claim. See Henry, 42 F.3d at 95 (We must not construe [plaintiff's] first claim as an admission against another alternative or inconsistent claim.); see also Moriarty v. Larry G. Lewis Funeral Directors Ltd., 150 F.3d 773, 777-78 (7th Cir. 1998) (Litigants who must frame their claims before obtaining discovery often find it necessary to conform their theories to the facts as time goes on . ... Although a superseded pleading sometimes may be offered as evidence, a false step early in a case does not blot out the opportunity to prevail on a claim that is sound factually and legally.) (citations omitted). 3