Opinion
Case No.: 8:09-cv-2508-T-33AEP.
June 25, 2010
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement and for Compliance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 3), which was filed on March 23, 2010. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. # 7) and a Motion for Class Certification (Doc. # 6) on April 6, 2010. Defendants responded to the Motion for Class Certification on April 16, 2010 (Doc. # 8).
For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Motion for a More Definite Statement with leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Further, the Court will deny the Class Certification Motion.
Analysis
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. He filed a forty-nine page complaint (not including exhibits) against the United States General Services Administration as well as numerous other governmental entities and officials, including the United States Department of Labor and several government department heads. (Doc. # 1). In essence, Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Defendants unlawfully failed to hire him for federal employment.
Defendants ask the Court to require Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement of his claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). Defendants argue that the complaint is so vague and conclusory that Defendants cannot reasonably respond to the allegations without a more definite statement. Defendants also remark that "Plaintiff's complaint is the quintessential shotgun pleading that has been condemned on numerous occasions by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals." (Doc. # 3 at 3). Further, Defendants correctly note that "Plaintiff's complaint is full of improper commentary, argument and legal conclusion." (Doc. # 3 at 7).
Although pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those represented by counsel, they still must comply with the minimal pleading standards set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Indeed, Plaintiff's pro se status does not exempt him from the requirements of the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) ("Once a pro se . . . litigant is in court, he is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.").
Review of the complaint reveals that Plaintiff has not conformed to the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The complaint is lengthy, verbose and disorganized. It is clear that Defendants cannot reasonably respond to the allegations in the complaint in its current form.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion for a More Definite Statement and dismisses Plaintiff's complaint with leave to file an amended complaint within twenty days of the date of this Order. The amended complaint shall not be more than 15 pages in length. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within these parameters, this case will be dismissed without further notice from the Court.
Further, since the complaint has been dismissed, the Court denies the Motion for Class Certification as moot. The Court will consider a class certification motion only after Plaintiff has filed a satisfactory complaint that is in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED: GRANTED. TWENTY (20) DAYS DENIED AS MOOT.
1. Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement and for Compliance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 3) is 2. Plaintiff shall have to file an amended complaint that clearly sets forth his alleged causes of action against Defendants. The amended complaint shall not be more than 15 pages in length. 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Doc. # 6) is DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida.