United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
BILLIE J. HOWARD, Plaintiff,
INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK/GALLAHUE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK’S MOTION TO DISMISS
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
This cause is before the Court on Defendant Community Health Network’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, or in the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement [Docket No. 36], filed on December 9, 2014, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(e). Plaintiff Billie J. Howard is proceeding pro se. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Defendant Community Health Network.
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed her original complaint on December 26, 2013, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq. (“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plaintiff originally identified Indianapolis Public Schools (“IPS”) as the sole Defendant. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint on June 30 adding a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”). The amended complaint named Community Health Network/ Gallahue Mental Health Services as an additional defendant in this action. Defendant Community Health Network filed the instant motion to dismiss on December 9, 2014, which is now fully briefed and ready for a ruling by the Court.
Plaintiff alleges in her amended complaint that she was “treated differently from similarly situated employees and suffered ‘unlawful’ employment discrimination due to her race and age; resulting in retaliation, adverse action and disparate impact by Defendants.” Am. Compl. at 3. The only fact averred by Plaintiff concerning specific actions taken against her by Defendant Community Health Network is as follows: “Employer (Gallahue) did not give any reason for Ms. Howard’s discharge other than her failure to return from administrative leave by an ambiguous date given by said employer.” Id.
Applicable Rules of Law
The motion before us seeks dismissal of the claims in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint relating to Defendant Community Health Network on grounds of its failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or in the alternative, a more definite statement of the claims in the complaint; this motion thus invokes Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(e), respectively.
1. Rule 12(b)(6) motion:
Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal of claims for their “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In determining the sufficiency of a claim, the court considers all allegations in the complaint to be true and draws such reasonable inferences as required in the plaintiff's favor. Jacobs v. City of Chi., 215 F.3d 758, 765 (7th Cir. 2000). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) applies, with several enumerated exceptions, to all civil claims, and it establishes a liberal pleading regime in which a plaintiff must provide only a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [she] is entitled to relief, ” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2). This reflects the modern policy judgment that claims should be “determined on their merits rather than through missteps in pleading.” E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 779 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing 2 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 8.04 (3d ed. 2006)). A pleading satisfies the core requirement of fairness to the defendant so long as it provides “enough detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1083 (7th Cir. 2008).
In its decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the United States Supreme Court imposed a more stringent formulation of the pleading requirements under Rule 8. In addition to providing fair notice to a defendant, the Court clarified that a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Plausibility requires more than labels and conclusions, and a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Instead, the factual allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. The plausibility of a complaint depends upon the context in which the allegations are situated, and turns on more than the pleadings’ level of factual specificity; the same factually sparse pleading could be fantastic and unrealistic in one setting and entirely plausible in another. See In re Pressure Sensitive Labelstock Antitrust Litig., 566 F.Supp.2d 363, 370 (M.D. Pa. 2008).
Although Twombly and Iqbal represent a new gloss on the standards governing the sufficiency of pleadings, they do not overturn the fundamental principle of liberality embodied in Rule 8. As this court has noted, “[N]otice pleading is still all that is required, and ‘a plaintiff still must provide only enough detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, and, through his allegations, show that it is plausible, rather than merely speculative, that he is entitled to relief.’” United States v. City of Evansville, 2011 WL 52467, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2011) (quoting Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1083). On a motion to dismiss, “the plaintiff receives the benefit of imagination, so long as the hypotheses are consistent with the complaint.” Sanjuan v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1994).
Moreover, whereas here, the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court construes the complaint liberally, however inartfully pleaded, and holds it to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted with the assistance of counsel. Childress v. Walker, No. 14-1204, 2015 WL 2408070 at *8, n.1 (7th Cir. May 21, 2015) (citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); see also Ambrose v. Roeckman, 749 F.3d 615, 618 (7th Cir. 2014); Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1027 (7th Cir. 2013); Anyaorah v. Indiana Univ.-Purdue Univ. at Indianapolis, No. 1:12-cv-00504-JMS-MJD, 2012 WL 2258848, at *1 (S.D. Ind. 2012).
2. Rule 12(e) motion:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(e), a party may move for a more definite statement when a complaint is “so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). When considering whether to grant a 12(e) motion, a court’s inquiry is guided by the federal pleading requirements. As described above, a plaintiff’s complaint need only contain “a short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Because of this liberal pleading standard, “Rule 12(e) motions are generally disfavored” and should be granted “only when the pleading is so unintelligible that the movant cannot draft a responsive pleading.” United States for Use of Argyle Cut Stone Co. v. Paschen ...