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.

Bostic v. Davis

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

March 1, 2017

TEDDY GLEN BOSTIC, Sr., Plaintiff,
v.
JEANETTE ARLENE DAVIS, et al., Defendants.

          Kemp, Magistrate Judge

          OPINION & ORDER

          ALGENON L. MARBLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Jeanette Arlene Davis's (“Davis”) Motion to Strike Language from Plaintiff's Complaint and for a More Definite Statement. (Doc. 16.) For the reasons detailed below, Davis's Motion is GRANTED.

         I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff Teddy Glen Bostic, Sr. (“Plaintiff” or “Bostic”), appearing pro se, filed a complaint in forma pauperis against Davis and certain officers of the Columbus Police Department (“Co-Defendants”) claiming a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. (See Docs. 1-2.)

         Plaintiff alleged that Davis and her Co-Defendants conspired consistently to harass him because of Plaintiff's ancestral relation to “King David, King Solomon and Joseph the earthly father of are [sic] good Lord and savior Jesus Christ” and Davis's belief that “Plaintiff's life must be harassed on a daily basis in order to save the lives of other people because of a curse on him from Satan himself.” (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15.) As part of this harassment, Plaintiff claimed that Davis and her Co-Defendants conspired to “cause him to commit suicide and did also attack Plaintiff physically, attacked his pet Pugs by cutting off their nail past the nerve when Plaintiff was not home and continued to come in [P]laintiff's home without proper warrants and harass his pet Pugs [while conducting] illegal searches.” (Id. ¶ 7.)

         On February 29, 2016, Magistrate Judge Kemp issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint, with leave to amend. (Doc. 3.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 14, 2016. (Doc. 4.) In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged an attack on his pet dog, a warrantless entry into his home, and a threat on his person by Officer Rice of the Columbus Police Department, all of which purportedly occurred during August of 2011. (Am. Compl. at 4-5.)

         Plaintiff also alleged that a Columbus police officer physically assaulted him on November 16, 2015, immediately after he almost collided with an SUV in the parking lot of his apartment complex. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff claimed the officer ordered him to drop his lawsuit and then hit Plaintiff in the throat with the heel of his hand, causing Plaintiff to temporarily lose his vision and fall back against his car. (Id.) When his vision returned, Plaintiff claims that he saw Davis sitting in the passenger seat of the same SUV he had nearly just run into, and that the driver of the SUV was a Columbus police officer. (Id. at 7-8.)

         On June 17, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims from August 2011 as time-barred. (Doc. 9.) However, the Court found that the allegations pertaining to the November 2015 assault should survive, because they are specific enough to survive dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and are not frivolous. (Id. at 4-5.)

         Davis filed the instant motion on August 10, 2016, asserting that Plaintiff's statements regarding his prior marriage to and divorce from Davis “do nothing to advance any claim to relief” and are immaterial. (Doc. 16 at 2.) Davis also moves the Court to strike any language from the Amended Complaint concerning her sexual history, or that is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent and scandalous.” (Id. at 3.)

         Davis further contends that, due to the extent of immaterial language in the Amended Complaint, it is impossible to ascertain the nature of Plaintiff's action, requiring Davis to speculate about the nature of the claims against her, and leaving her without a sufficient basis for a proper response or defense. (Id.) Davis correctly notes that the Amended Complaint is devoid of numbered paragraphs to separate Plaintiff's allegations, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). (Id. at 2.)

         II. ANALYSIS

         A pro se litigant's allegations are held to a less stringent standard than those in pleadings drafted by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Accordingly, this Court must afford some deference to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

         A. ...


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.