McManus v. Funk et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSEPH MCMANUS 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO.: 25-1278
SERGEANT FUNK, et al. 	SECTION: “G”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Slidell Police Department, Sergeant Joshua Funck, and
Captain Nicky Mistretta’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for More Definite Statement.1
Plaintiff Joseph McManus (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint alleging that
Defendants unlawfully disclosed his now deceased father’s medical information in violation of
Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act (“HIPPA”).2 The motion was set for submission
on October 29, 2025. Plaintiff’s opposition was due on or before October 21, 2025. To date,
Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion. As such, the motion will be deemed unopposed.
Considering the motion, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the motion.
I. Background
On June 29, 2025, Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a Complaint in this Court against
Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.3 In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he submitted a
request for body camera footage under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).4 Plaintiff further
1 Rec. Doc. 7.
2 Rec. Doc. 1.
3 Id.
4 Id. at 7.
Case 2:25-cv-01278-NJB-EJD Document 9 Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 4

2
claims that the body camera footage allegedly portrayed the protected health information of his
deceased 	father 	in 	violation 	of 	the 	Health 	Insurance 	Portability 	and 	Accountability 	Act
(“HIPAA”).5 Plaintiff allegedly made another FOIA request to uncover who edited the body
camera footage and was allegedly emailed the names of Sergeant Funck and Captain Mistretta.6
Thus, Plaintiff alleges that he is bringing this claim on his father’s behalf as next of kin, and is
seeking one million to three million dollars in damages for the stress caused by the alleged release
of his father’s protected health information, and food and gas money to get to the court.7
On October 10, 2025, Defendants filed the instant Motion for More Definite Statement.8
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion.
II. Defendants’ Arguments in Support of the Motion
Defendants move for the Court to order a more definite statement. Specifically, Defendants
claim that the Complaint is “so vague and unintelligible that it does not allow defendants to
reasonably prepare a response.”9 Defendants contend that it is not clear from the Complaint what
Plaintiff is alleging that Defendants did, and how the alleged actions caused him injury.10
Defendants further assert that Plaintiff does not explain how Defendants’ alleged release of
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Rec. Doc. 2.
9 Rec. Doc. 2-1 at 2.
10 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-01278-NJB-EJD Document 9 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 4

3
Plaintiff’ father’s medical information affects him.11 Thus, Defendants argue that this Court should
order Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that “provides more factual detail.”12
III. Law and Analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), “[a] party may move for a more definite
statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or
ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”13 The motion must be made
before the filing of a responsive pleading and “must point out the defects complained of and the
details desired.”14
After review of the Complaint, the Court finds that the Complaint is vague, conclusory,
and fails to provide sufficient factual allegations to enable Defendants to reasonably prepare a
response. Specifically, the Complaint does not clearly identify: (1) the specific acts or omissions
allegedly committed by each defendant; (2) the date of the alleged disclosures; or (3) the legal
basis for any private right of action under HIPPA. Under Rule 12(e), a motion for more definite
statement is appropriate when a pleading is “so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot
reasonably prepare a response.” The Court finds that standard met here.
Accordingly,
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
14 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-01278-NJB-EJD Document 9 Filed 11/07/25 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for More Definite Statement 15 is
GRANTED. Plaintiff must file a more definite statement on or before November 21, 2025.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA this day of November, 2025.
NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15 Rec. Doc. 7.
6th
Case 2:25-cv-01278-NJB-EJD Document 9 Filed 11/07/25 Page 4 of 4