United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
MYRON
H. THOMPSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, plaintiff Trenton
Gartman filed this lawsuit naming as defendants multiple
Autauga County Jail correctional officers, jail
medical-services provider QCHC, Inc., and QCHC nurses.
Gartman asserts that, while he was in pretrial custody in the
Autauga County Jail, all defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (his
federal claim), and that the nurse-and-medical-provider
defendants were negligent in responding to his serious need
for medical care (his state claim). Jurisdiction for the
federal claim is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
(federal question) and 1343 (civil rights), and the court has
supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367.
This
case is currently before the court on a motion to dismiss
filed by ‘correctional defendants' Serlioris Perry,
Jabari Agee, Gene Lucas, Justin Robbins, Keith Dennis, Juan
Davila, Sharon Reese, Perry Rogers, Jamal Pettway, and
Patrick Cheatham.[*] In their motion, these defendants
assert that Gartman has failed to state a federal claim
against them and raise the defense of qualified immunity.
They further assert that Gartman's corrected first
amended complaint should be dismissed as an impermissible
‘shotgun pleading.' The court agrees with the
correctional defendants that the complaint is a shotgun
pleading as to the allegations against them. Accordingly, the
court will strike Gartman's federal claim against the
correctional defendants from the complaint and order him to
file a second amended complaint that repleads the claim.
See Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348,
1358 (11th Cir. 2018) (where a party files a shotgun
pleading, the court “should strike the [pleading] and
instruct counsel to replead the case”) (quoting
Byrne v. Nezhat, 261 F.3d 1075, 1133 n. 113 (11th
Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Bridge v.
Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008))
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted); Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(f)(1) & (2).
‘Shotgun
pleadings' include those that assert “multiple
claims against multiple defendants without specifying which
of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions
....” Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's
Office, 792 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015); see
also Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir.
2001) (“The complaint is replete with allegations that
‘the defendants' engaged in certain conduct, making
no distinction among the fourteen defendants charged ...
”). As currently pled, Gartman's corrected first
amended complaint (doc. no. 70) fails to distinguish between
the ten correctional defendants' conduct and fails to
attribute each allegation against them to any specific
defendant(s). Except for paragraph 21, in which he properly
identifies Cheatham and Perry, Gartman refers to “one
or more of the Jail Defendants” or “Defendants
Agee, Perry, Cheatham and/or one or more of the Jail
Defendants” as the subjects of his allegations. As a
result, the court is left unsure as to whether Gartman has
reason to believe that Agee, Perry, and Cheatham were any
more likely involved in any particular act than the other
unnamed defendants. Nor does the complaint even make clear
whether Gartman claims that the same officer(s) carried out a
series of actions, or whether different officers were likely
involved in each alleged act. This distinction, of course,
could be relevant to whether any particular defendant had
subjective knowledge of Gartman's medical needs.
Contrary
to Gartman's argument that it is “proper and
customary” not to identify the defendant(s) responsible
for each allegation at this pre-discovery stage,
Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 79)
at 28, complaints filed in federal court must be pled with
more detail than Gartman has provided, see generally
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). It is
not enough to name each of the ten correctional officer
defendants in the caption and attribute each allegation to
“one of the Individual Jail Defendants.”
Corrected First Amended Complaint (doc. no. 70) at 14. If
Gartman intends to allege that defendants Agee, Perry, and
Cheatham were responsible for an alleged act, he must name
them without introducing doubt as to their identity through
the use of “and/or.” Id. at 20. If
Gartman does not know which of the ten defendants were
specifically responsible for each allegation, he should, at
minimum, provide a physical description or as many other
details as he has about the individual to which he attributes
each act or omission. Overall, in this second amended
complaint, the court seeks for Gartman to indicate with
sufficient clarity each defendant's alleged involvement
in each allegation, even if he cannot identify the person
responsible by name, and to inform the court as to whether
any of the same individuals were involved in multiple alleged
acts.
In
repleading the complaint, counsel should keep in mind, that
under Rule 11, a complaint is appropriate so long as
“factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if
specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity for further
investigation or discovery.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(3). In
other words, absolute certainty, while desirable, is not
necessary.
Accordingly,
for the above reasons, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1)
Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. no. 74) is granted to
the extent that the federal claim against correctional
defendants Serlioris Perry, Jabari Agee, Gene Lucas, Justin
Robbins, Keith Dennis, Juan Davila, Sharon Reese, Perry
Rogers, Jamal Pettway, and Patrick Cheatham is struck.
(2)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2),
plaintiff Trenton Gartman is given leave to file, by January
29, 2020, a second amended complaint that repleads his
federal claim against the correctional defendants. (The
second amended complaint must also include all allegations
against the other defendants.) If he does not file an amended
complaint by that date, the court will dismiss said claim
without prejudice.
---------
Notes:
[*]
The
remaining defendants--Latechia Ball, Lisa Brady and QCHC,
Inc.--filed answers to the corrected first ...