Opinion
Case No.: 8:09-cv-2508-T-33AEP.
August 11, 2010
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. # 16), which was filed on August 9, 2010. In the Motion, Plaintiff suggests that various Defendants are in default due to their failure to respond to Plaintiff's "17 page Amended Complaint [that] was filed separately and individually by the Plaintiff on July 19, 2010." (Doc. # 16).
As will be discussed in more detail below, the Court denies the Motion because, presently, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, and the Court is waiting for Plaintiff to file his Court authorized amended complaint.
Analysis
On December 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed a 49-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).
On March 23, 2010, Defendants filed a Motion for a More Definite Statement and for Compliance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. # 3). On June 25, 2010, this Court entered an Order granting the Motion for a More Definite Statement. (Doc. # 9). In the Order, the Court dismissed the complaint after determining 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." (Doc. # 9 at 3).
In its June 25, 2010, Order, the Court granted Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint, limited to 15 pages, to be filed within 20 days of the Court's Order. Thereafter, on July 19, 2010, the Court entered an Order dismissing the case because Plaintiff failed to file his amended complaint. (Doc. # 10). On that same day, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a 17-page amended complaint. (Doc. # 11). Plaintiff attached his proposed amended complaint to the motion as an exhibit. (Doc. # 11-1).
On July 20, 2010, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff's request to file a 17-page amended complaint and directed Plaintiff to file the 17-page amended complaint within 10 days of the date of that Order. (Doc. # 12). However, on August 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting leave to file a 25-page amended complaint. (Doc. # 13). On August 6, 2010, the Court entered an Order allowing Plaintiff to file a 17-page amended complaint by August 18, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. (Doc. # 15).
Plaintiff has yet to file the amended complaint. As such, there is no complaint on file to which a responsive pleading is due. Plaintiff appears to argue that this proposed amended complaint, filed on July 19, 2010, as an exhibit to his motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. # 11-1), mandated a responsive pleading from Defendants, however, Plaintiff's theory is unsupported by the law. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, limited to 17 pages, by August 18, 2010, at 5:00 p.m., Defendants will be required to respond. The Court will entertain a default motion, filed pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, only in the absence of a timely filed response to a properly filed complaint.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. # 16) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida.