MILLER v. GOGGIN
2:22-cv-03329
E.D. Pa.Feb 8, 2023Background
- Pro se plaintiff John Ryan Miller sued 84 defendants (school officials and law enforcement) over enforcement of Octorara School District’s Policy 903 and related interactions at public meetings (Jan 24, Feb 14, Mar 21, 2022).
- Miller alleges Chester County detectives circulated an email about him to local police; he submitted RTKL requests seeking responses but claims many agencies produced no records, asserting the records were destroyed.
- Count IX invokes 18 U.S.C. § 2071 (destruction of public records), and Miller’s Defendant Matrix lists Defendant Gerald Bonmer (Coatesville VA Medical Center Police Chief) under Count IX.
- Bonmer filed a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement, arguing the complaint lacks any factual allegations about him and does not specify whether he’s sued individually or officially.
- Miller responded attaching the Chester County broadcast email showing Bonmer as a recipient and maintains Bonmer failed to produce RTKL records, implying destruction.
- The Court denied Bonmer’s Rule 12(e) motion: it found Miller’s pleading (read liberally, as pro se) gave enough factual notice to permit a response, that allegations imply individual-capacity suit, and that merits (including whether § 2071 gives a private cause of action) may be raised later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 12(e) motion should be granted | Miller alleges Bonmer received Chester County email and failed to produce RTKL records, implying destruction — enough to answer | Bonmer says his name only appears on a recipient line; complaint lacks factual allegations tying him to misconduct or stating capacity | Denied. Court finds complaint supplies enough detail for Bonmer to prepare a fact-specific defense. |
| Whether Count IX (18 U.S.C. § 2071) is adequately pleaded | Miller asserts defendants destroyed public records responsive to RTKL requests | Bonmer argues § 2071 is a criminal statute with no private right of action and merits-based dismissal is appropriate | Court did not resolve the merits; allowed claim to proceed to response stage and left merits (including private-right issue) for a later motion. |
| Whether Bonmer is sued in individual or official capacity | Miller alleges defendants acted in their "private person capacity" and incorporates that allegation into Count IX | Bonmer contends complaint fails to clarify capacity | Held that Miller repeatedly alleges private-capacity conduct; court concluded individual-capacity suit is evident. |
| Whether defendant is properly served and/or represented by DOJ | Miller proceeded pro se; unclear service status | DOJ filed a limited entry of appearance stating it represents Bonmer only in his official capacity and noting lack of proper service for individual-capacity representation | Court noted no waiver or proof of service for Bonmer/the U.S.; observed DOJ representation limited to official-capacity matters and did not convert the Rule 12(e) motion into a merits dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Independence Twp., 463 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2006) (explains when a complaint must disclose underlying facts to allow a defendant to frame a fact-specific defense under Rule 12(e))
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address 68.82.141.39, 370 F. Supp. 3d 478 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (describes Rule 12(e) standard and when pleadings are too vague to respond)
- Godfrey v. Upland Borough, 246 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (E.D. Pa. 2017) (discusses that Rule 12(e) is disfavored and appropriate for unintelligible pleadings rather than mere lack of detail)