From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woodard v. Hamilton Sundstrand

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
Jun 7, 2002
01 C 50026 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 7, 2002)

Opinion

01 C 50026

June 7, 2002


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


Plaintiff, Booker T. Woodard, filed, pro se a second-amended complaint, against defendant, Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation. The portions of plaintiff's first-amended complaint, alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were dismissed with prejudice because plaintiffs complaint showed that the EEOC charge was not timely filed. However, plaintiff was given leave to file and amended complaint as to any post-January 24, 1999 claims under 42 U.S C. § 1981 ("section 1981"). Woodard v. Sundstrand, 2002 WL 226876 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2002) (Reinhard, J). The court found the first amended complaint's allegations as to post-January 24, 1999 events incomprehensible and granted plaintiff another chance to plead a section 1981 claim. Id. at *1. Before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs second-amended complaint, filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

A 12(b)(6) motion is granted if the plaintiff can prove no set of facts consistent with plaintiff's claim that would entitle him to relief.Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 102 (1957). Plaintiff's complaint need only contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506 ___, 122 S.Ct. 992, 995 (2002). Even if the complaint itself fails to provide sufficient notice the court can look to plaintiffs response to defendant's motion to dismiss to supply necessary information. See Ross Brother Constr. Co. v. Int'l Steel Serv. Inc., 283 F.3d 867, 873 (7th Cir. 2002). Liberally, reading plaintiff's response to the motion along with his complaint, he has alleged he was not hired by defendant due to his race at a time after January 24, 1999. This is sufficient to state a claim under the liberal federal pleading rules. See Swierkiewicz, 122 S.Ct. at 998. A defendant believing it requires greater specificity in order to respond, can move for a more definite statement under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) before answering. Id.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.


Summaries of

Woodard v. Hamilton Sundstrand

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
Jun 7, 2002
01 C 50026 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 7, 2002)
Case details for

Woodard v. Hamilton Sundstrand

Case Details

Full title:WOODARD v. HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Illinois

Date published: Jun 7, 2002

Citations

01 C 50026 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 7, 2002)