Opinion
No. 1:98CV00902
December 22, 2000
MENORANDUM OPINION
The facts relating to this matter have been set forth in greater detail in the court's memorandum opinion of May 24, 2000. Plaintiff, acting pro se, originally filed this action on October 15, 1998, attempting to allege causes of action "under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII covering ADA, ADEA, and EPA." (Compl. ¶ 3.) Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss on the basis, among others, that Plaintiff's initial complaint failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, in that it failed to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief and failed to give Defendants sufficient notice of the claims asserted against them. In the May 24, 2000, order, this court granted Defendants' motion and allowed Plainttff 30 days to refile a complaint that conformed to the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
Plaintiff named as defendants the State of North carolina, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, the Division of Social Services, the Division of Medical Assistance, Barry Miller, Barry Burger, Daniel Pickett, Geoff Elting, and Clarence Erving, by and through their counsel, Attorney General Michael F. Easley and Assistant Attorney General Bruce S. Ambrose. Neither Plaintiff's complaint nor his amended complaint state whether the named persons are being sued in their individual capacity or in their official capacity as state employees.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, within the deadline established by the court. This matter comes before the court on Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 12(b)(1), (2) and(6), as well as the protections of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.
For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted.
I. DISCUSSION
Although Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint on several grounds, the court once again will only address Defendants' argument that the amended complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of Plaintiff's claims.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a complaint to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds establishing a plaintiff's claim for relief. This requirement ensures that defendants will have fair and adequate notice of claims asserted against them. The pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) are liberally construed in favor of the pleading party to avoid disputes over pleading technicalities. However, a plaintiff must do more than allege in the complaint that a wrong has been committed. The complaint must contain facts about the parties and incidents that provide the grounds for relief. While courts hold pleadings drafted by pro se complaints to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596 (1972), courts do require a pro se complaint to contain enough information to substantiate the alleged claims.
Thus, a plaintiff's complaint must discuss each defendant's actions and the resulting injury to the plaintiff. While Plaintiff's amended complaint now contains several numbered sections instead of one long narrative, Plaintiff has failed to state facts giving Defendants sufficient notice of the harms they allegedly caused. The amended complaint also fails to state that any of the individual Defendants acted against Plaintiff because of his race, age, gender, or possible disability. Further, the amended complaint fails to state the manner in which his federal or constitutional rights were violated, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
In fact, though Plaintiff ends each numbered section with an allegation of violations the American with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Equal Pay Act, Plaintiff does not state the necessary factual allegations that support a prima facie case under any of the statutes, such as his race or the existence of disability. Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege that he has exhausted his available administrative remedies, either under state law or under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission administrative law. The amended complaint also fails to allege that Plaintiff was qualified for the positions for which he applied or that those individuals hired were not qualified, nor does the amended complaint provide necessary information about the age and/or race of the other candidates.
According to court records provided in Defendants' brief in support of their motion to dismiss, Plaintiff's claims filed with the proper administrative agencies are either pending judicial review or have been dismissed without Plaintiff's filing the required appeal. (Defs.' Br. at 10.)
II. Conclusion
Therefore, even under the liberal pleading rules afforded pro se parties, the amended complaint does not meet the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts in a legally cognizable or coherent form that provides the court or Defendants notice of his claims or legal grounds for relief. For the reasons discussed herein, the court will grant Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's amended complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.
A judgment in accordance with this memorandum opinion shall be filed contemporaneously herewith.