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.

Houser v. Wetzel

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

February 1, 2017

DARIEN HOUSER, Plaintiff,
v.
WETZEL, et al, Defendants.

          DARIEN HOUSER John P. Senich, Jr. PA Office of Attorney General

          Samuel H. Foreman Tiffany Temas Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby John V. DeMarco Law Offices of John V. DeMarco Erica Kelly Gordon & Rees LLP

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Cynthia Reed Eddy United States Magistrate Judge.

         Presently pending before the Court are the following motions:

         1. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 48) filed by Defendant Diamond Pharmacy Services;

         2. Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 49) filed by Defendant Allegheny General Hospital; and

         3. Motion for More Definite Statement filed by Defendants Demaske, Patrick Felice, Louis S. Folino, George, Gilmore, Nedra Grego, Anthony Gumbarevic, Jenkins, Longstreth, John McAnany, Santoya, Tennant, Dorina Varner, Irma Vihlidal, Watson, Wetzel, and Widenor Harper (collectively referred to as the “DOC Defendants”) (ECF No. 51).

         For the reasons that follow, the motion for more definite statement will be granted and Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motions to dismiss will be dismissed without prejudice to renew after the submission of the amended complaint.

         Background

         Plaintiff, Darien Houser (“Plaintiff” or “Houser”) is a pro se inmate currently housed at the State Correctional Institution - Greene. The Complaint names approximately 28 defendants, including 21 individuals who are employed either as officials of the Department of Corrections (“DOC”), employees at SCI-Greene, or as employees of America Service Group, Inc. / Corizon, a contractor employed by the DOC to provide health care services to its inmates. Also named as defendants are “Bureau of Health Care Services, ” “Diamond Pharmacy CEO/Manufacturer of Lotion;” “Allegheny General Hospital CEO / Administration / Staff, ” and three sets of Jane & Joe Doe defendants, (1) “Jane & John Doe Wexford Health Services / Parenting Companies;” (2) “Jane and John Doe Medical, Corrections, Hospital Staff/ LIABLE PARTIES;” and (3) “Jane and John Doe / Corrections Solutions.” The allegations in the Complaint cover a wide variety of incidents which occurred during the time period from July of 2014 through April 6 or 7, 2016.

         The first three pages of the complaint are written on the Court's standard complaint form, with the remaining 8 pages being single-spaced typed pages, typed in a font smaller than the required pica font required by our Local Rules.[1]

         Houser's complaint is best described as a “kitchen-sink” or “shotgun” complaint. Such complaints are troublesome for many reasons. For one thing, complaints like the instant one unfairly burden defendants and courts. The plaintiff who files such a shotgun complaint shifts onto the defendant and the court the burden of identifying the plaintiff's genuine claims and determining which of those claims might have legal support. This is not the job of either a defendant or the Court.

         It is important to note that a “kitchen-sink” or “shotgun” complaint also harms the plaintiff who brings it. In most cases, a genuine dispute that supports a viable legal claim underlies a plaintiff's complaint. But this genuine dispute becomes almost impossible to discern when it is buried in pages of various allegations, some of which may not rise to the level of a viable claim.

         The instant complaint contains many unrelated claims that do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. It begins with a paragraph entitled “Lotion” in which Houser alleges he was given LUBRISKIN lotion, which is sold by Diamond Pharmacy. The complaint contends that Diamond Pharmacy is liable for purchasing and issuing a product that is known to cause cancer. The complaint further states that the DOC Defendants gave Houser the lotion, even though the lotion can cause cancer. The complaint does not state that ...


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.