Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-6904
November 21, 2003
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court is Defendant City of Philadelphia's First Motion for a More Definite Statement or to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. 9), filed on August 20, 2003. Plaintiff Timothy A. Wims, apro se litigant, submitted a response in opposition (Doc. 10) on September 25, 2003, Defendant submitted a reply on October 9, 2003 (Doc. 11). Upon consideration of the parties respective filings, Defendant's motion for a more definite statement is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action on August 23, 2002, by filing a motion to proceed informa pauperis. The motion was granted and the complaint was filed on March 17, 2003. Defendant was served on April 18, 2003. The complaint alleged:
The attorney in my case did not represent me before Judge Scott Olin effective[ly]. Judge Scott Olin refused to apply the state and federal laws to my case accordingly.
The attorney made arrangements for $20,000 — or $25,000 — to settle this case, without the concern of the injuries sustained by me on the work site while working for the City of Phila. Social Security is paying for the City of Phila. responsibility.
Compl. (Doc. 3). In response to the complaint, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel a more definite statement. This Court granted the motion for a more definite statement and instructed:
Plaintiff shall provide the following information in the amended complaint: (1) identify the City department for which Plaintiff was working at the time of the alleged injury, (2) specify the date(s) on which the injury complained of was sustained, (3) identify the location of the worksite referred to in paragraph 2 of the complaint, (4) provide the case number of Plaintiff's lawsuit before Judge Scott Olin (referred to in the complaint), identify the parties (both plaintiff and defendant) named in the lawsuit, and identify the court in which the lawsuit was filed, and (5) provide the name of the attorney referred to paragraph 1 of the complaint (the attorney who represented Plaintiff in the case before Judge Scott Olin).See Court's Order of July 2, 2003 (Doc. 6).
Plaintiff responded to the Court's order by filing a document answering each question in order and attaching supporting exhibits. (See Doc. 7, entered as "Response by Timothy A. Wims to the Court's Order dated July 2, 2003.") This document, which the Court accepts as Plaintiff's first amended complaint, indicates that Plaintiff worked for the Philadelphia Water Department and sustained the injuries referenced in the first complaint on November 16, 1995. The amended complaint also identifies the location where Plaintiff was injured, and provides the name and address of the attorney which handled the worker's compensation claim apparently filed on behalf of Plaintiff as result of November 16, 1995 incident. The amended complaint does not expressly state the basis for the City's alleged liability.
The exhibits attached to Plaintiff's amended complaint provide additional details about the November 16, 1995 incident and the handling of his worker's compensation claim.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) states:
If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the motion is granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within 10 days after notice of the order or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to which the motion was directed or make such order as it deems just.
A motion for a more definite statement "is directed to the rare case where because of the vagueness or ambiguity of the pleading the answering party will not be able to frame a responsive pleading."Schaedler v. Reading Eagle Publication, Inc., 370 F.2d 795, 798 (3d Cir. 1967). In addition to providing a factual basis for the claim, a plaintiff must indicate the basis for the defendant's liability and the court's jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8.
III. DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff's amended complaint provides sufficient facts to give Defendant fair notice as to the factual basis for his claim. It can be discerned that Plaintiff is seeking relief stemming from injuries he sustained on November 16, 1995, while working for the City of Philadelphia's Water Department. However, despite his good faith attempt to comply with the Court's order to file an amended complaint with a more definite statement, Plaintiff failed to state the basis for Defendant's liability. The pro se litigant in Schaedler faced a similar circumstance. As in this case, the Schaedler defendant filed a motion for a more definite statement. The motion was granted and the district court outlined in its order those matters the pro se plaintiff was to include in his amended complaint. The plaintiff attempted to comply with the court's order by filing what was labeled "answer to Memorandum of Order" and which included the specific factual information requested by the district court in its order. The defendant then moved to dismiss and the district court granted the motion, concluding that the plaintiff had failed to comply with its order.
Liberally construing Plaintiff's pro se amended complaint, as this Court must, see, e.g., Schaedler, 370 F.2d at 798, the Court accepts the amended complaint as including, by reference, the averments of Plaintiffs first complaint. Together, these pleadings provide Defendant with fair notice required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Reversing, the Third Circuit began its analysis by directing that "any inadequacy of the effort to amend the complaint must be judged in the extenuating circumstances that it was written by a lay litigant appearing pro se and [noting] that there [wa]s no reason to question the good faith of [the plaintiff's] attempt to comply with the court's order."Schaedler, 370 F.2d at 798. The Court also found relevant that the plaintiff had not been given a second opportunity to "augment his pleading following the motion to dismiss." Id. As dismissal of his complaint effectively extinguished his right to litigate his claims, the Court held dismissal was inappropriate without another opportunity to amend the complaint, in light of the plaintiff's unfamiliarity with the technical requirements of federal litigation practice and his good faith effort to comply with the district court's order. Id. at 799 (citing 2 Moore, Federal Practice (1965), § 12.20 at 2310).
The same analysis applies in this case. The amended complaint provides sufficient facts to give the City fair notice as to the factual basis for the complaint and to allow the City to frame a response to these allegations. The defect in Plaintiff's amended complaint is that it fails to state the basis for City's liability; that is, Mr. Wims does not state how the City caused his injuries or why the City should be held responsible for his injuries. Nor, as the City notes, does Mr. Wims state the basis for federal jurisdiction in this case. In fairness to Plaintiff, the Court did not instruct him to include this information in his first amended complaint. Given his good faith effort to comply with this Court's July 2, 2003 Order,Schaeldin mandates that he be given a second opportunity to cure any defects in his pleading.
IV. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement is GRANTED. An appropriate order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of November, 2003, upon consideration of Defendant City of Philadelphia's "First Motion for a More Definite Statement or to Dismiss the Amended Complaint" (Doc. 9), Plaintiff Timothy A. Wims Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 10), and Defendant's Reply (Doc. 11), and in accordance with the accompanying opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for a more definite statement is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file with this Court and serve on Defendant a second amended complaint containing the following information within twenty (20) calendar days of the date of this Order:
1. Plaintiff shall indicate the basis for the City's legal liability, that is, state how or why the City is liable for the injuries that Plaintiff sustained on November 16, 1995, while working for the Philadelphia Water Department. Plaintiff shall indicate which laws, if any, that the City is alleged to have violated as a result of the November 16, 1995 incident.
2. Plaintiff shall state the basis for federal jurisdiction, that is, state whether he alleges that the City violated a federal law or is otherwise liable to him under federal law.