Opinion
Civil Action No. 08-cv-00910-MSK-KMT.
July 3, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before the court on "The United States Secret Service's Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(E)" (Amended) [Doc. No. 63, filed July 2, 2008]. The plaintiffs responded on July 3, 2008 with "Plaintiffs' Response to United States Secret Services' Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e)" [Doc. No. 64].
The court has reviewed the motion and the response and is otherwise fully advised.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides
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.
A Rule 12(e) motion should only be made when the complaint states a cause of action and the party seeking dismissal cannot frame an Answer to the Complaint. A fair reading of the Supplemental and Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief [Doc. No. 51] does not disclose a document with such frailties.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." This rule requires the plaintiff to "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007). The Federal Rules do not require a plaintiff "to have every fact or theory developed in detail before the complaint is filed and the parties have an opportunity for discovery." Evans v. McDonalds Corp., 936 F.2d 1087, 1091 (10th Cir. 1991)
It appears defendant Secret Service's primary issue with the Complaint is that it does not specify exactly which constitutional provision(s), in addition to the obvious First Amendment claim, are offended by the factual averments set forth in the Complaint. This is an inquiry easily answered through discovery. Where the complaint contains facts sufficient to set forth the general elements of a claim, in this case a First Amendment violation, a Rule 12(e) motion is inappropriate and discovery ought to proceed in conformity with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26-37. United States v. Gustin-Bacon Div., Certainteed Prods. Corp., 426 F.2d 539, 543 (10th Cir. 1970); Franklin v. Shelton, 250 F.2d 92, 95 (10th Cir. 1958).
I find the Supplemental and Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief [Doc. No. 51], although verbose, provides ample notice to the defendants concerning the First Claim and does so in a manner which will allow the defendants to adequately and completely respond thereto.
It is hereby ORDERED:
"The United States Secret Service's Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(E)" (Amended) [Doc. No. 63] is DENIED.
The hearing previously set for July 3, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. is hereby VACATED.