United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
J. Michelson District Judge
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS OR FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT (ECF NO.
ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14, 2019, Plaintiff Lemas Price Mitchell filed this lawsuit,
in pro per, alleging employment discrimination by
Defendant on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (ECF No. 1, PgID.4-11.)
Judge Michelson referred all pretrial matters to me for
resolution. (ECF No. 6.) On October 2, 2019, Defendant filed
a motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and (e). (ECF
No. 14.) The Undersigned ordered Plaintiff to respond to the
motion by November 1, 2019 (ECF No. 15), which he did on
October 31, 2019, by filing a more definite statement labeled
as an amended complaint (ECF Nos. 17 & 18).
defendant may file a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6) for the plaintiff's “failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). To state a claim for relief, a pleading must
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has
jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief
in the alternative or different types of relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Further, “[e]ach allegation must
be simple, concise, and direct, ” although “[n]o
technical form is required.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1).
“In determining whether a complaint states a claim, a
court must accept as true all the factual allegations in the
complaint and determine whether the complaint contains
‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Bridge v. Ocwen Fed.
Bank, FSB, 681 F.3d 355, 358 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). “[P]ro se complaints are
liberally construed and are held to less stringent standards
than the formal pleadings prepared by attorneys.”
Bridge, 681 F.3d at 358.
for a more definite statement are governed by Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(e), which provides:
A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading
to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so
vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a
response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive
pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the
details desired. If the court orders a more definite
statement and the order is not obeyed within 14 days after
notice of the order or within the time the court sets, the
court may strike the pleading or issue any other appropriate
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).