PEPPERS v. ST. CLAIR COUNTY

Case No. 16-cv-1365-DRH-RJD.

ROSHANDA PEPPERS, Plaintiff, v. ST. CLAIR COUNTY, DEBRA MOORE, And FRANK BERGMANN, Defendants.

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination
Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Roshanda Peppers, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

St. Clair County, Defendant, represented by Kate M. Leveque , Husch Blackwell LLP & Kaytlin E. Kopen , Husch Blackwell LLP.

Debra Moore, Defendant, represented by Kate M. Leveque , Husch Blackwell LLP & Kaytlin E. Kopen , Husch Blackwell LLP.

Frank Bergmann, Defendant, represented by Kate M. Leveque , Husch Blackwell LLP & Kaytlin E. Kopen , Husch Blackwell LLP.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.

Now before the Court is Defendants St. Clair County, Debra Moore, and Frank Bergman June 29, 2017, motion for a more definite statement (Doc. 18). Specifically, the defendants request an order requiring Plaintiff Roshanda Peppers to provide a more definite statement regarding the specific claims she is asserting against each named defendant, as required by FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(e).

Under Rule 12(e), a "party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). The motion must "point out the defects complained of and the details desired." The Seventh Circuit considers Rule 12(e) one of several "tools" the district court may use to require additional specificity in a pleading. Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir. 2003).

As of today's date, plaintiff has not responded to the motion for a more definite statement. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the Court considers the failure to respond as an admission of the merits of the motion.1 Additionally, the Court finds that plaintiff's sparse allegations against each defendant are insufficient and render it impossible for the defendants to prepare a response. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for a more definite statement (Doc. 18).

Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an amended complaint on or before August 24, 2017. The amended complaint shall set forth her particular claims against each named defendant. Specifically, plaintiff shall include the following details in her amended complaint:

1. Identify any and all claims plaintiff is attempting to assert against Defendant Bergman; 2. Identify the conduct in which plaintiff alleges Defendant Bergman engaged in violation of any law; 3. To the extent plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim for disability discrimination against any defendant, identify plaintiff's alleged disability and the adverse action that plaintiff alleges each defendant took because of her alleged disability; and 4. Identify the federal and state laws under which plaintiff is attempting to assert claims for retaliation against Defendants St. Clair County and Debra Moore.

If plaintiff fails to comply with this order by the aforementioned deadline, the Court may strike the December 19, 2016 complaint and dismiss this matter for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Local Rule 7.1(c) provides in part: "Failure to timely file a response to a motion may, in the Court's discretion, be considered an admission of the merits of the motion."

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases