Addison v. UPS United Parcel Service, 1:24-cv-03183

Plaintiff Morgan Addison, proceeding pro se, filed a civil suit against her former employer United Parcel Service (UPS) and supervisor Jeff Dinger.
Addison alleges she was assaulted by an unknown person at work on June 18, 2024, leading to her being criminally charged and terminated from employment.
The complaint claims damages including unlawful termination, medical bills, lost wages, workers’ compensation, and emotional distress.
The case was initially filed in Maryland state court and then removed to federal court by the defendants.
Defendants moved for a more definite statement, arguing Addison's claims were too vague for response.
The court considered Addison's pro se status but found her complaint insufficiently clear regarding specific legal claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Vague pleading/statement of claims	Addison alleges various harms but does not specify legal causes of action	Defendants cannot prepare a response due to lack of clear claims	Motion for more definite statement granted
Clarity required under FRCP 8 and 12(e)	Attempts to add facts in response but not specific claims	Argues complaint fails to identify distinct counts or legal bases	Plaintiff must amend complaint
Liberal construction for pro se litigant	Relies on the court to interpret claims	Cites duty of plaintiff to plead plausible, clear claims	Liberal construction applied but insufficient
Opportunity to amend	N/A	Requests order requiring more definite statement or dismissal	Plaintiff given 21 days to amend

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (courts must liberally construe pro se pleadings but not act as advocate)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (liberal construction of pro se complaints required)
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274 (4th Cir. 1985) (court cannot conjure legal claims for pro se litigant)
Wall v. Rasnick, 42 F.4th 214 (4th Cir. 2022) (liberal construction can overlook formal deficiencies)