Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mitchell v. Royal Gas & Oil

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

December 5, 2019

LEMAS PRICE MITCHELL, Plaintiff,
v.
ROYAL GAS & OIL, Defendant.

          Laurie J. Michelson District Judge

          ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT (ECF NO. 14)

          ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. BACKGROUND

         On May 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).

         II. STANDARDS

         A 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 contain:

(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 support;
(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.

         Motions 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 order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.