Summary
dismissing plaintiff's complaint for failure to include a jurisdictional statement after several warnings
Summary of this case from Chappell v. Kennestone HospitalOpinion
Case No. 5:02CV575
October 4, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The instant case is before the Court on Defendant's motion to dismiss based upon the failure of Plaintiff's amended complaint to conform with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF Dkt. #7. Based upon the fact that Plaintiff's amended complaint does not conform with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in accordance with this Court's order, coupled with Plaintiff's failure to attend a scheduled status conference, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss and DISMISSES the instant case without prejudice. See ECF Dkt. #7.
Plaintiff, pro-se, filed her complaint on March 26, 2002 wherein she made several allegations regarding her past employment with a VFW post in Akron, Ohio. See ECF Dkt. #1. Instead of answering, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on June 21, 2002. See ECF Dkt. #7. Defendant contended that Plaintiff's complaint was not in fact a properly filed complaint or pleading because it did not contain a claim for relief, a statement of grounds for jurisdiction, or prayer, all in contravention of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id.
At the CMC on August 1, 2002, the Court set various dates governing the pendency of the instant action including, inter alia, a discovery cutoff date and an adding of parties and/or amending of claims deadline of October 1, 2002. See ECF Dkt. #19. On August 2, 2002, the Court found that Plaintiff's complaint did not comply with the requirements of Rule 8 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and issued an order granting Plaintiff until October 1, 2002 to amend her complaint to comply with the requirements of Rule 8 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF Dkt. #21. In that order, and during the CMC, the Court admonished Plaintiff that it would dismiss her action without prejudice if her amended complaint failed to comply with Rule 8 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by October 1, 2002. See id.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, "A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded." FED. R. Civ. P. 8
On September 3, 2002, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Defendant. See ECF Dkt. #25. The Court considers Defendant's pending motion to dismiss to be addressed to Plaintiff's amended complaint. Comparing the three salient requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to Plaintiff's amended complaint, the Court once again finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with requirements of the rule. See id. Plaintiff's amended complaint clearly does not include jurisdictional grounds. See id. Plaintiff did not file a subsequent complaint after her amended complaint. See id. Given that Plaintiff did not file a complaint that complied with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by October 1, 2002, Plaintiff has failed to adhere to this Court's order dated August 2, 2002. See ECF Dkt. #22.
Courts have held that a defendant should not be required to file a new dispositive motion simply because an amended pleading was introduced while its motion was pending, particularly if some of the defects raised in the original motion remain in the new pleading. See Yates v. Applied Performance Technologies, Inc., 205 F.R.D. 497, 499 (S.D.Ohio 2002). Based upon the fact that the defects raised in Defendant's original dispositive motion remain in the Plaintiff's amended complaint, this Court simply may consider the Defendant's motion to dismiss as being addressed to the Plaintiff's amended complaint. See id., and ECF Dkt. #7, 25.
On October 3, 2002, the Court conducted a status conference in the instant case. See ECF Dkt. #26. Plaintiff failed to appear or even contact the Court, while counsel for Defendant, Saundra J. Robinson appeared in person. See id.
Although pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than attorneys, dismissal of a case for lack of prosecution is appropriate when a pro se litigant fails to adhere to readily comprehended court deadlines. See May v. Pike Lake State Park, No. 00-4203, 8 Fed.Appx. 507, *508, 2001 WL 493407, **1 (6th Cir. May 1, 2001), unpublished. Likewise, Rule 41(b) gives a court the authority to dismiss a case for failure of the plaintiff to comply with an order or rule of the court. This measure is available to the district court as a tool to manage its docket and to avoid unnecessary burdens on the court and opposing parties. See Palasty v. Hawk, No. 00-5840, 15 Fed.Appx. 197, *199,2001 WL 857209, **1 (6th Cir. June 20, 2001), unpublished(citation omitted). The factors to consider before imposing such a dismissal are whether: 1) the failure to cooperate with the court's orders was wilful or in bad faith; 2) the opposing party suffered any prejudice; 3) the party was warned that dismissal was contemplated; and 4) less severe sanctions were imposed or considered. See id.
After this Court warned Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in compliance with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by October 1, 2002, or have her case dismissed, Plaintiff proceeded to file a similarly flawed pleading. See ECF Dkt. #25. Plaintiff's amended complaint does not conform to the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. Plaintiff then failed to appear at this Court's status hearing on October 3, 2002. See ECF Dkt. #26. The Court finds that Defendant has been prejudiced by Plaintiff's failure to follow fundamental pleading requirements, and Plaintiff's failure to attend this Court's status hearing.
Because Plaintiff has not adhered to this Court's order regarding pleading requirements, and failed to appear at this Court's status hearing, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss and DISMISSES in the instant action without prejudice. See ECF Dkt. #7. Finally, because the case is ordered dismissed without prejudice, Plaintiff's motion for leave to plead, and motion to compel discovery are hereby DENIED as moot. See ECF Dkt. ##8, 24.
IT IS SO ORDERED.