Opinion
Civil No. 05-746-DRH.
May 11, 2006
ORDER
Before the Court is defendant Ruebhausen's motion for a more definite statement, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). (Doc. 15). Plaintiff has not responded.
If a pleading is so "vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading," the Court may require a more definite statement to be filed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Although the complaint has passed through the Court's threshold review, a review of the complaint reveals that it does lack sufficient detail. More specifically: (1) reference dates are missing from paragraphs 3, 4 and 13; (2) paragraph 4 fails to specify who allegedly pulled a gun on plaintiff; and (3) paragraph 13 pertains to a search for a gun, but does not indicate the location of the search. Plaintiff must provide defendant with these details to enable defendant to form a responsive pleading.
Defendant's arguments attacking the legal viability of some of plaintiff's claims must be addressed in a separate dispositive motion. See Local Rule 7.1.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Ruebhausen's motion for a more definite statement (Doc. 15) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. On or before May 26, 2006, plaintiff O'Quinn shall file a "More Definite Statement" clearly providing the details enumerated above, as requested in the motion for a more definite statement (Doc. 15). Failure to comply with this order may result in plaintiff's complaint being stricken — meaning that plaintiff's case would be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.