Johnson v. Mays

District Court, W.D. Virginia·Decided November 20, 2023·No. 7:22-cv-00342·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION

LEON JOHNSON, ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:22-cv-00342 ) ) v. ) ) By: Elizabeth K. Dillon B. MAZE, et al., ) United States District Judge Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Leon Johnson,1 a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an action alleging civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was opened when the court issued a severance order in Johnson v. Duty, Civil Action No. 7:21-cv-00635. (Dkt. No. 1-1.)2 Before the court are defendants’ motions for a more definite statement and to stay discovery. (Dkt. Nos. 38, 46.) Also before the court is Johnson’s “Motion for Leave to File a Return Answer”; as discussed below, the court construes this motion as a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 41.) For the reasons stated below, all three of these motions will be denied. I. BACKGROUND The court described the operative allegations for this action in the severance order as follows: The Clerk is DIRECTED to conditionally file a copy of Johnson’s amended complaint . . . in a new and separate civil action that shall consist of Johnson’s claims of “sex discrimination,” which appear to assert a claim based on the Equal Protection Clause and/or a claim that the conditions of her confinement violate the Eighth

1 According to the amended complaint, Johnson is transgender, and she refers to herself using feminine pronouns. The court does so also.

2 The court severed Johnson’s amended complaint in Case No. 7:21-cv-635 into five separate actions. The four new actions were Case Nos. 7:22-cv-340, 7:22-cv-341, 7:22-cv-342, and 7:22-cv-343. Amendment. In particular, she alleges that, even though she is a transgender woman, she is forced to shower with male prisoners, which is a security issue and puts her at risk of an assault. She also complains that she is limited to one shower a day, while other inmates are permitted multiple showers. This lawsuit also will include the allegations set forth on pages 7 and 8 concerning alleged statements, sexual comments, and threats by defendant Maze from June through August 2021, and Maze’s denying Johnson a shower on at least one occasion. The defendants in this case will be Maze, Massingill, Shepherd, Fuller, and White.

(Dkt. No. 1-1 at 5.) After this action was opened, the court issued a service order, and defendants filed an answer. (Dkt. No. 20.) Soon after, however, Johnson filed a motion to amend or correct her complaint. (Dkt. No. 23.) Magistrate Judge Hoppe granted this motion and allowed Johnson thirty days to file an amended complaint, with instructions. (Dkt. No. 35.) Judge Hoppe explained: Johnson has sought leave to amend her complaint to add an equal protection claim based on her transgender status and the denial of certain religious items. The presiding district judge already granted Johnson leave to add such a claim. Specifically, in Johnson v. Duty, No. 7:22-cv-340 (W.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2022), the court entered an opinion and order dismissing several of her claims in that case, and leaving only her First Amendment Free Exercise claim and her claim under RLUIPA. As to the equal protection claim in that case, the court explained that it alleges that she was denied religious items based on her status as a transgender woman, not because she was a Muslim.

Those allegations are “properly part of her claims of discrimination based on her status as a transgender woman and should be included in the case dealing with those claims,” Johnson v. Duty, No. 7:22-cv-340, Mem. Op. at 5 (W.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2022) —the above-captioned matter, Johnson v. Maze, No. 7:22-cv-00342. The court dismissed that claim without prejudice in Case No. 7:22-cv-340 but at the same time allowed her to move to amend her complaint in this case. No. 7:22-cv-340, Mem. Op. at 5 (W.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2022). Pursuant to that directive, Judge Hoppe granted Johnson’s motion to amend to add that claim. Judge Hoppe explained that Johnson must file an amended complaint by a specified date, and that the amended complaint may include only the claims originally included in this case and an equal protection claim based on being denied religious items because she is a transgender

woman. (Dkt. No. 35 at 2.) “Her amended complaint must be a new pleading, complete in all respects, which stands by itself without reference to any earlier filed-complaint, documents, or attachments.” (Id.) Johnson filed a pleading which Judge Hoppe construed as the amended complaint, and Judge Hoppe ordered defendants to file a response within thirty days. (Dkt. Nos. 36, 37.) Defendants responded by filing a motion for a more definite statement. (Dkt. No. 38.) II. ANALYSIS A. More Definite Statement “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Due to the liberal pleading requirements in federal court,

motions for a more definite statement are generally disfavored and granted only sparingly. The Collection, LLC v. Valley Bank, 4:09CV00007, 2009 WL 2357145, at *2 (W.D. Va. July 31, 2009); McCrea v. Johns Hopkins Universities, CIVIL NO. WDQ-15-579, 2015 WL 9255328, at *4 (D. Md. Dec. 17, 2015). Such motions are “intended for situations where pleadings are so unclear that drafting a response to them is practically impossible. As a disfavored remedy, motions for a more definite statement should only be granted where the pleading is unintelligible or the meaning is unclear.” Id. at *5. Rule 12(e) motions “are not a substitute for discovery, and ordinarily will not be granted where the information sought could be obtained in discovery.” 56th Street Investors, Inc. v. Worthington Cylinders Mississippi, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13cv149, 2013 WL 12133647, at *1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 3, 2013). Defendants argue that Johnson’s pleading falls within the “quite small” class of pleadings that are “appropriate subjects for a motion under Rule 12(e),” Wright & Miller, Fed. Practice &

Procedure 1376 (3d ed. 2018), because it lacks any detail that could put defendants on notice as to what incidents, people, or conditions could substantiate or support any of her claims. Defendants maintain that because the amended complaint is so difficult to comprehend, it is not possible or appropriate to undertake discovery into Johnson’s allegations. For example, with respect to her claim of religious discrimination, Johnson alleges that she has “the right to free exercise her belief which is religious and sincere, like eating kosher food, covering her hair and body, praying at a certain time and having her religious items.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 15.) Defendants object that Johnson does not identify what religious items were missing or stolen, how they were related to her religious exercise, and why the alleged deprivation imposed a substantial burden on her religious exercise. However, defendants

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Johnson v. Mays, (W.D. Va. 2023).

Johnson v. Mays (Johnson v. Mays) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 388
403 U.S.C. § 388
Suits by prisoners
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1)
§ 388
03 U.S.C. § 388