Free Order on Motion for More Definite Statement - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

A - .... ...aEn_._._. ' I
Case 3:02-cv-02147-JBA Document 45 Filed 07/O1/2004 Paget of 2 \
I e~ e
-,, If I i
·e‘} M., . I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT l
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ;j EE M IQT1 j I
· ‘· '=`I¥I '.. I..I I `
Et")
MIGUEL A. DIAZ ; gg;. :,5 I
: PRISONER ` -'*’· ,
v. : Case No. 3:O2CV2147 (JBA)(JGM) .
BRIAN FOLEY, etal. { `
RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a document entitled "Motion to Disclose Evidence" in which he
asks the court to retain an affidavit relating to the incident underlying the complaint.
The court is not a repository for evidence relating to cases before it. The correct I
practice is for the parties to retain the evidence supporting their claims and then
present the evidence at trial or attach it to a memorandum in support of or opposition to I
a motion for summary judgment. Here, however, the affidavit in question already has
been docketed and is part of the record. Thus, pIaintiff’s motion [dkt. #43] is _
GRANTED. Plaintiff is cautioned not to submit any additional evidence in this manner.
Defendant has filed a motion for more definite statement on the ground that
plaintiff failed to identify the source of the right he contends was violated. I
Motions for more definite statement generally are disfavored and will only be
granted "[i]f the pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted, is so vague and
ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive
I l
I I
pleading .... ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). The purpose of a complaint is to "inform the 5
defendant as to the general nature of the action and as to the incident out of which a \
l I
I
I
l “ I
I I
I I
I -

_,_, I illil `


an- -.--· P Ca;3:O2-cv-02147-JBA Document 45 Filed 07/O1/2004 Page 2 of 2 X

cause of action arose." Bower v. Weisman, 639 F. Supp. 532, 538 (S.D.N.Y. 1986);
gag Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47»48 (1957). Accordingly, 1 I
Rule 12(e) is "designed to remedy unintelligible pleadings, not merely to correct for lack l
of detail." Kelly v. L.L. Cool J., 145 F.R.D. 32, 35 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (citations omitted),
tg, 23 E.3d 398 (2d Cir.), een. denied, 513 u.S. 30 (1994). l
Defendant concedes that the complaint informs him of the factual basis of the
claim. Plaintiff alleges that defendant used excessive force against him in effecting his
arrest in December 1999. The complaint describes the use of force, provides the
approximate date of the incident and describes plaintiffs injuries. Defendant argues
that a more definite statement is required because plaintiff did not specify the exact
constitutional provision upon which he bases his claims, forcing him to speculate about
the nature of the claim against him. The court is not persuaded by defendant’s l
argument. Claims for use of excessive force during the course of an arrest are .
cognizable under Fourth Amendment or under state law as assault andlor battery. The ,
court concludes that the complaint sufficiently informs defendant of the claims against l
him. (
Defendants motion for more definite statement [dkt. #40] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this ln! day of July, 2004, at New Haven, Connecticut. 1
· l
JEEAFAG. iviAReoLiS l l
u T D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE l l
l l
( l