Siegler v. City of Columbus

Full title: SARA ELIZABETH SIEGLER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Apr 29, 2013

Case No. 2:12-cv-472 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 29, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 2:12-cv-472

04-29-2013

SARA ELIZABETH SIEGLER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al., Defendants.

Norah McCann King

Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge King

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion of Defendant Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority for an Order Compelling Plaintiff Sara Elizabeth Siegler to File an Amended Complaint that Complies with Federal Civil Procedure Rule 10(b) ("Defendant's Motion"), Doc. No. 17. Defendant argues that plaintiff "failed to number her claims [in the complaint] . . . [and] failed to limit her paragraphs to a single set of circumstances, all making it not practicable for Defendant to set forth all available defenses and causing Defendant to set forth general denials to the allegations in the Complaint." Id. at p. 2. Plaintiff, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, opposes defendant's motion. Memorandum Contra Document 17, Doc. No. 19. Defendant has not filed a reply.

Rule 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that all claims be set forth in "numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances." Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff's Complaint, Doc. No. 1-3, does not strictly comply with Rule 10(b) because the paragraphs are not numbered and they are not limited "to a single set of circumstances." Nevertheless, pro se complaints are to be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 596 (1972). See also Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)).

Plaintiff's Complaint specifically identifies each defendant against whom relief is sought and expressly sets forth five claims for relief. See Complaint, pp. 39-42. The Court is satisfied that the Complaint is sufficiently specific so as to give the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority, the only defendant remaining in the action, notice of the claims against it. Under the circumstances, the Court will not require plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Defendant's Motion, Doc. No. 17, is therefore DENIED.

______________________

Norah McCann King

United States Magistrate Judge