COMES NOW, Daryl L. Kidd ("Kidd"), and files this Memorandum of Law in Support of His Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement ("Motion to Dismiss"), showing the Court as follows:

Marquitta L. Portman (the "Plaintiff") is pro se in the instant action, and has filed a 29 page, 117 paragraph Complaint that is vague, ambiguous, and fails to set forth the claim(s) or the relief sought against Kidd. In fact, Plaintiff named 11 Defendants, and did not set forth with any certainty what claim(s) she is alleging and against which Defendants or what facts support what claim(s). Because Plaintiff has not stated any cognizable claim against Kidd, this Court should dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim. In the alternative, the Court should require Plaintiff to state precisely which claim(s) and cause(s) of action are being alleged against which Defendants, and which factual allegations support which claim(s) and/or cause(s) of action.

I. The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.

The Court should grant Kidd's Motion to Dismiss because, as to him, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A court should dismiss a complaint if it does not sufficiently give notice of the claim and a general indication of the type of litigation involved. See Lathem v. Hestley,270 Ga. 849, 850, 514 S.E.2d 440, 441 (1999). Throughout the entire Complaint, Plaintiff does not set forth any claim or allege any viable cause(s) of action against Kidd. See Pltf. Complaint. In fact, few, if any, of the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint relate to Kidd. Indeed, Plaintiff rarely mentions Kidd in the 29 page and 117 paragraph Complaint. 1. Plaintiff seems to be more focused on the judges who are named as co-defendants. When she does refer to Kidd, she does not allege any facts which would entitle her to relief.

Additionally, Plaintiff does not appear to seek any relief from Kidd. Id. The Complaint states that Plaintiff is seeking a "declaration of both past and present Jurisdiction of Civil Action File No. 94-1-5243-22." Id. at Paragraph 42. Plaintiff also requests a change of venue, a temporary restraining order and a declaration that certain Orders from other actions are void. Id. at Paragraphs 42, 43, 48, 49 and 53. These "requests" do not pertain to any alleged wrongful act of Kidd, and Plaintiff's Complaint is silent as to any other "relief" sought.

In Merchant v. Mitchell, 1999 WL 1042122 (Ga. App. 1999), a pro se plaintiff brought an action for abusive litigation. S.E.A.R.C.H. filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. The trial court granted S.E.A.R.C.H.'s motion and dismissed plaintiff's complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly dismissed the action as to S.E.A.R.C.H. because plaintiff's complaint, "neither alleges facts specifying acts of commission or omission committed against him by S.E.A.R.C.H. nor of resulting injury inuring to his detriment." Id. at *2. Similarly, Plaintiff's Complaint, in the instant action, fails to "allege facts specifying acts of commission or omission" committed against her by Kidd and fails to identify any resulting injury. Thus, the Court, like the court in Merchant, should grant Kidd's Motion to Dismiss.

II. In the Alternative, the Court Should Order Plaintiff to File a More Definite Statement.

If the Court does not dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint as to Kidd for failure to state a claim, the Court should grant Kidd's Motion for More Definite Statement because it is impossible to ascertain from Plaintiff's Complaint which claim(s) and cause(s) of action are being pled and against which defendant(s) and what facts support what claim(s) and cause(s) of action. The court must grant a motion for more definite statement where the pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the opposite party cannot reasonably be required to frame a proper responsive pleading. Groomes v. Whitner, 144 Ga. App. 530, 241 S.E.2d 604 (1978). Although Kidd filed an Answer in this action in order to avoid being placed in default, Plaintiff's Complaint is so vague and ambiguous that he cannot possibly prepare a defense to Plaintiff's allegations. In fact, Kidd is completely unable to ascertain from reviewing the Complaint what Plaintiff alleges he did wrong, the harm she claims she suffered at his hands, or the legal claim she is asserting against him. Because, in the Complaint's current state, Kidd cannot determine with any certainty the claim(s) against him, and thus, cannot prepare a defense, the Court must grant Kidd's Motion to More Definite Statement.

In Groomes, the pro se plaintiff filed an action with the court entitled, "malpractice suit." However, the plaintiff did not allege any negligence on behalf of the defendants, did not describe how his alleged injury occurred and did not demand relief. The defendants filed a motion for more definite statement and the court granted the motion because the plaintiff "failed to specify either the basis for his claim or the relief which he sought." Id. Thus, in the event this Court denies Kidd's Motion to Dismiss, the Court, like the court in Groomes, should grant Kidd's Motion for More Definite Statement because as stated above, Plaintiff has failed to specify the basis for her claim and the relief sought.

As the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has noted, "Experience teaches that, unless cases are pled clearly and precisely, issues are not joined, discovery is not controlled, the trial court's docket becomes unmanageable, the litigants suffer, and society loses confidence in the court's ability to administer justice." Anderson v. District Bd. of Trustees of Central Florida Community College, 77 F.3d 364, 367 (11th Cir. 1996). Thus, in the interests of public policy, this Court should grant Kidd's Motion for More Definite Statement.

WHEREFORE, Kidd respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the alternative, Kidd requests the Court to order Plaintiff to file a more definite statement.

This 15th day of February, 2000.

Respectfully submitted,

[signature by Kari R. Connor]
Kristin R. Connor
Georgia Bar No. 605429
Kari A. Mercer
Georgia Bar No. 502295


ARNALL, GOLDEN & GREGORY, LLP
2800 One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3450
(404)873-8772 Attorneys for Defendant Daryl L. Kidd

Included with Daryl L. Kidd's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement

Includes Certificate of Service, dated February 15, 2000.