Opinion
Civil Action 3:23-cv-00119
12-23-2024
JESSICA B. BOWERS, Plaintiff, v. JEFF S. SANDY, individually and in his official capacity as the former Cabinet Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Homeland Security, and BETSY JIVIDEN, individually and as a former employee of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and DIDYMUS TATE, individually and as an employee of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and JOHN/JANE DOE UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS OF THE WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, individually and as employees or agents of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and ASHLEY FISHER, individually and as an employee of PrimeCare, and LISA BEARD, individually and as an employee of PrimeCare, and KELSEY SHANK, individually and as an employee of PrimeCare, and CHRISTIN BELL, individually and as an employee of PrimeCare, and BRENDA EAGLE, individually and as an employee of PrimeCare, and CHRISTINA WAY, individually and as an employee of PrimeCare, and CHELSEA MCCRORK, individually and as an employee of PrimeCare, and MORTICIA MARSHALL, individually and as an employee of PrimeCare, and BRANDY SCOTT, individually and as an employee of PrimeCare, and ALFRED BALDERA, individually and as an employee of PrimeCare, and PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC., and PRIMECARE MEDICAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Frank W. Volk, Chief United States District Judge
Pending is a Motion for More Definite Statement [ECF 135], filed September 16, 2024, by Defendants Jeff S. Sandy, Betsy Jividen, and Didymus Tate (the “Moving Defendants”). Plaintiff responded on September 30, 2024, [ECF 137], and the Moving Defendants replied on October 7, 2024, [ECF 138]. The matter is ready for adjudication.
I.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a pleader provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing . . . entitle[ment] to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). The required “short and plain statement” must provide “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957), overruled on other grounds, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562-63); McCleary-Evans v. Md. Dep't of Transp., State Highway Admin., 780 F.3d 582, 585 (4th Cir. 2015). In sum, the complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly 550 U.S. at 570.
Rule 12(e) permits a party to seek a more definite statement when a pleading “is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). Rule 12(e), however, must be read in tandem with the requirements of Rule 8(a) as outlined above. Student A v. Liberty University, Inc., 602 F.Supp.3d 901, 918 (W.D. Va. 2022) (citing Hodgson v. Va. Bapt. Hosp., Inc., 482 F.2d 821, 822 (4th Cir. 1973)). “[C]ourts have held that a motion under Rule 12(e) is designed to strike at unintelligibility rather than simple want of detail[.]” Sherrer v. Fairhaven OPCO, LLC, 2022 WL 3570347, at *2 (S.D. W.Va. Aug. 18, 2022) (internal quotations omitted) (collecting cases). At bottom, such motions “will be granted only when the complaint is so vague and ambiguous that the defendant cannot frame a responsive pleading.” Id.
II.
The Moving Defendants contend Plaintiff's complaint is so factually insufficient as to prohibit them from formulating a response. [ECF 136 at 4]. They assert Plaintiff's claims “are so vague as to render the complaint deficient.” [Id. at 5]. The Moving Defendants plainly challenge the amount of factual detail provided, not the intelligibility of the Amended Complaint. The claims alleged against the Moving Defendants are easily ascertainable for the purposes of preparing a responsive pleading. The factual sufficiency of the operative pleading is challenged under Rule 12(b)(6) not Rule 12(e).
IV.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for a More Definite Statement [ECF 135]. The Court ORDERS the Moving Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF 107] on or before January 6, 2025.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this written opinion and order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.