The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND MOTION TO
Joseph Howard Sherman ("Plaintiff"), a prisoner currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison located in Calipatria, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court conducted a sua sponte screening of Plaintiff's original Complaint, along with all his subsequent amended Complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A. On October 15, 2010, the Court conducted its required sua sponte screening of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint and issued an extensive Order dismissing a number of the claims and Defendants. (See Oct. 15, 2010 Order at 1-9.) The Court found that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged retaliation claims against Defendants Aguilar, D.R. Gonzales and E. Delgado. Id. at 2-3. Those are the only remaining claims in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint ("TAC").
Defendants Aguilar, Delgado and Gonzales ("Defendants") have now filed a Motion for More Definite Statement and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) [Doc. No. 20]. Plaintiff filed his Opposition on February 2, 2011 [Doc. No. 21] to which Defendants have filed their Reply [Doc. No. 22]. The Court permitted Plaintiff to file a sur Reply on February 22, 2011.
The Court has determined that Defendants' Motion is suitable for disposition upon the papers without oral argument and that no Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Louisa S. Porter is necessary. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 7.1(d)(1), 72.3(e).
II. DEFENDANTS'MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 8; (2) Plaintiff has failed to state a retaliation claim against Defendants; and (3) Defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity to the extent Plaintiff seeks money damages against them in their official capacities.
B. Motion for a More Definite Statement per FED.R.CIV.P. 12(e)
Defendants have brought a motion for a more definite statement of Plaintiff's claims pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(e).*fn1 Defendants claim that Plaintiff's "TAC intermingles all of the allegations with all of the twenty-one defendants, and all counts, making the TAC very confusing." (Defs.' Memo. of Ps & As at 4.)
A Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement is proper when the pleading at issue "is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading." FED.R.CIV.P. 12(e). However, a motion for a more definite statement must be considered in light of the liberal pleading standards of Rule 8(a) (a complaint need only be a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]"). See Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 1072, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 1994) ("Motions for a more definite statement are viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted because of the minimal pleading requirements of the Federal Rules."); see also Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450, 1461 (C.D. Cal. 1996) ("A motion for a more definite statement attacks unintelligibility in a pleading, not simply mere lack of detail.") (citation ...