Taylor v. City of Mobile Police Department

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MONICA TAYLOR, 	)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-00328-KD-N
)
CITY OF MOBILE POLICE 	)
DEPARTMENT,1 	)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
I.
On August 28, 2023, the City of Mobile (“the City”), claiming that it is a proper
defendant to this action rather than the “City of Mobile Police Department,”
removed this civil action to this Court from Alabama state court under 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a) (“Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action
brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have
original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the
district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place
where such action is pending.”), alleging subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”) based on the
1 Though the Defendant claims that it should be referred to as the “City of Mobile,”
the Court will at present title this case based on how the Defendant is named in the
title of both complaints. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to change the title of this
case on the docket to reflect the title used in this order.
Case 1:23-cv-00328-KD-N Doc# 7 Filed 10/02/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>

Plaintiff’s claims that certain of her federal constitutional rights were violated (see
Doc. 1-1, PageID.8).
On September 8, 2023, the City filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) (“insufficient service of process”) and
12(b)(6) (“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”), or alternatively
for a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). (Doc. 4).2
The assigned District Judge referred said motion to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge for appropriate action under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)-(b), Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72, and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a). See S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b); (9/8/2023
electronic reference notation). By order entered September 12, 2023 (Doc. 5), the
undersigned 	set 	a 	deadline 	of 	September 	29, 	2023, 	for 	the 	Plaintiff, 	Monica
Taylor—who is proceeding without counsel (pro se)—to respond to the motion. That
order also noted that September 29 was the deadline for Taylor to amend her
complaint 	once 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	course 	under 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure
15(a)(1)(B), and stated that Taylor need not serve a separate response to the motion
to dismiss if she chose to timely amend her complaint under Rule 15(a)(1)(B).
On September 29, 2023, Taylor filed a document entitled “Respond Not to
Dismiss” (Doc. 6). The assigned District Judge referred said filing to the undersigned
for appropriate action. See S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b); (9/29/2023 electronic reference
notation). Given that said document expands on Taylor’s claims and allegations in
2 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “apply to a civil action after it is removed
from a state court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(1).
Case 1:23-cv-00328-KD-N Doc# 7 Filed 10/02/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>

her initial complaint, contains a prayer for relief requesting damages and injunctive
relief, and does not appear to directly address the issues raised in the City’s motion,
the 	undersigned 	construes 	Taylor’s 	September 	29 	filing 	(Doc. 	6) 	as 	her 	First
Amended Complaint filed as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1)(B).3
As a result of the amendment, the City’s Rule 12(b) and (e) motion is now
directed at a pleading that is no longer operative. See Pintando v. Miami-Dade Hous.
Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1243 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (“As a general matter,
‘[a]n amended pleading supersedes the former pleading; the original pleading is
abandoned by the amendment, and is no longer a part of the pleader's averments
against his adversary.’” (quoting Dresdner Bank AG, Dresdner Bank AG in Hamburg
v. M/V OLYMPIA VOYAGER, 463 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation and
quotation omitted))); Fritz v. Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 676 F.2d 1356, 1358
(11th Cir. 1982) (“Under the Federal Rules, an amended complaint supersedes the
original complaint.”). In light of this, and in Rule 15(a)(1)’s purpose, see Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(1) advisory committee’s note to 2009 amendment (stating that the current
3 “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers[.]” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197,
167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam) (citations and quotations omitted). “Liberal
construction, in more concrete terms, means that federal courts must sometimes
look beyond the labels used in a pro se party's complaint and focus on the content
and substance of the allegations.” Torres v. Miami-Dade Cnty., Fla., 734 F. App'x
688, 691 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (unpublished) (citing Means v. Alabama, 209
F.3d 1241, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam)). “Yet even in the case of pro se
litigants this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a
party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.”
Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation
omitted).
Case 1:23-cv-00328-KD-N Doc# 7 Filed 10/02/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>

version of Rule 15(a)(1) was enacted to “force the pleader to consider carefully and
promptly the wisdom of amending to meet the arguments in [a Rule 12(b), (e), or (f)]
motion[, as a] responsive amendment may avoid the need to decide the motion or
reduce the number of issues to be decided, and will expedite determination of issues
that otherwise might be raised seriatim”), the Rules 12(b) and (e) motion directed at
the initial complaint (Doc. 4) is MOOT,4 without prejudice to the movant’s ability
to raise the arguments therein in a new motion directed at the First Amended
Complaint, if appropriate.5 Responses to the first amended complaint are due no
later than OCTOBER 16, 2023.6
II.
When Taylor filed her First Amended Complaint, she included 14 pages of
medical records as an exhibit,7 which the Clerk of Court has provisionally filed
4 See Florence v. Stanback, 607 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1120-21 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (holding
that magistrate judge did not exceed jurisdiction by denying a motion to dismiss
without prejudice to the defendants’ ability to raise the same issues in another
motion).
5 The undersigned expresses no opinion on whether the First Amended Complaint
would still be subject to dismissal for any of the reasons stated in the present motion
to dismiss.
6 Taylor should be aware that, because Rule 15(a)(1) only allows a party to amend
their pleading once as a matter of course, any further amendment to her complaint
must be made through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) (Except as permitted
by Rule 15(a)(1), “a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's
written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice
so requires.”).
7 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) (“A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a
pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.”).
Case 1:23-cv-00328-KD-N Doc# 7 Filed 10/02/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>

under seal at her verbal request made at the time of filing. (See Doc. 6-1). However,
apart from certain inapplicable exceptions, see S.D. Ala. GenLR 5.2(c), any party
seeking to file material under seal must file a motion to seal in accordance with S.D.
Ala. GenLR 5.2(b). In addition to the requirements of that rule, the general public
has 	“[t]he 	common-law 	right 	of 	access 	to 	judicial 	proceedings, 	an 	essential
component of our system of justice, [which] is instrumental in securing the integrity
of the process. Beyond establishing a general presumption that criminal and civil
actions should be conducted publicly, the common-law right of access includes the
right to inspect and copy public records and documents.” Chicago Trib. Co. v.
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
Accordingly, any party seeking to file material under seal must generally show good
cause for making an exception to the common-law right of access to court records.
Upon due consideration, Taylor is ORDERED to file a motion for leave to file
the 14 pages of exhibits to her complaint (Doc. 6-1) under seal that complies with
S.D. Ala. General Local Rule 5.2 no later than OCTOBER 16, 2023. Failure to do so
will result in entry of an order striking those exhibits from the record, such that they
will not be further considered. See S.D. Ala. GenLR 5.2(b)(2) (“If the motion to seal is
denied, the Clerk will delete the document from the Electronic Case Filing System
and return any conventionally filed document to the party, unless the Court orders
otherwise.”).
In responding to this order, Taylor should consider, among other things,
whether redaction of personal information as allowed by Federal Rule of Civil
Case 1:23-cv-00328-KD-N Doc# 7 Filed 10/02/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>

Procedure 5.2(a) is a reasonable alternative to sealing the exhibits in their entirety.
She should also consider the necessity of filing those exhibits is necessary at this
stage of the case, as at the pleading stage she is only required to allege sufficient
facts showing entitlement to relief, not prove them.
DONE and ORDERED this the 2nd day of October 2023.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-00328-KD-N Doc# 7 Filed 10/02/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID#
<pageID>