United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court grants a defendant's motion to dismiss a
plaintiff's complaint against the director of his former
employer regarding his dissatisfaction with an insurance
company's handling of his claim for long-term disability
benefits, because the complaint does not comply with Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 8(a)(2).
2, 2018, Anthony Fusco, acting pro se, filed and served a
complaint in York County Superior Court naming as Defendants
Noel L. Haynes, Katie Doherty, Mary Haynes Rogers, Kim E.
Davis, and Andrew Davis, Esq. Notice of Removal,
Attach. 1, Compl. with Exs. (ECF No. 1-1)
(Compl.). With the Complaint, Mr. Fusco filed
eighty-four pages of exhibits. Id.
Rogers answered Mr. Fusco's Complaint in York County
Superior Court on July 30, 2018. State Court Record,
Attach. 7, 7-30-18 Answer of Mary Haynes Rogers
(Martin) (ECF No. 10-7). That same day, Mr. Haynes and
Ms. Doherty filed a notice of removal of the case to the
United States District Court for the District of Maine.
Notice of Removal (ECF No. 5) (Notice of
January 14, 2019, the Court granted motions to dismiss filed
by Defendants Andrew Davis, Kim Davis, Noel Haynes, and Katie
Doherty. Order on Mots. To Dismiss (ECF No. 28)
(Order on Mots. to Dismiss as to Other
Defs.). On January 17, 2019, remaining
Defendant Ms. Rogers filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim. Mot. to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim (ECF No. 30) (Def.'s Mot.). On
January 31, 2019, Mr. Fusco filed a letter expressing his
dissatisfaction with the Court's dismissal of his
complaints as to Mr. Davis, Ms. Davis, Mr. Haynes, and Ms.
Doherty. Letter by Anthony J. Fusco (ECF No. 33). On
February 1, 2019, Mr. Fusco filed another letter, which the
Court interprets as a response in opposition to Ms.
Roger's motion to dismiss. Letter by Anthony J.
Fusco (ECF No. 34) (Pl.'s Opp'n). On
February 8, 2019, Ms. Rogers replied. Reply to Resp. to
Mot. to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No.
35) (Def.'s Reply).
March 11, 2019, Mr. Fusco filed two additional letters with
the Court, Letter by Anthony J. Fusco (ECF No. 37);
Letter by Anthony Fusco (ECF No. 38), which appear
to be duplicates of several exhibits Mr. Fusco originally
filed in support of his Complaint. Id. These letters
are not compliant with this District's Local Rule 7,
which only permits the moving party to “file a reply
memorandum, . . . which shall be strictly confined to
replying to new matter raised in the objection or opposing
memorandum.” D. Me. Loc. R. 7(a)-(c). Rule 7 does not
allow Mr. Fusco to file additional replies, nor does it allow
replies not responsive to the Defendant's objection. The
Court has not considered these letters in deciding the
Statement of Facts
dispute appears to arise from Mr. Fusco's dissatisfaction
with Unum Life Insurance Company of America's (Unum)
decision regarding the payment of long-term disability
benefits under a group insurance policy issued to Mr.
Fusco's former employer, Shalom House. In the first page
of his Complaint, titled “Pro Se Lawsuit Summary and
Contact Sheet, ” he outlines his charges against Ms.
Rogers, Executive Director of Shalom House. Compl.
at 1. Mr. Fusco charges Ms. Rogers with “Collusion,
” “Depraved Indifference to Human Life, ”
“Breach of Contract, ” and two counts of
“Defamation of Character.” Id. at 1. In
support of his claims, Mr. Fusco alleges that Shalom House
told Unum he was fired for disciplinary reasons. Id.
at 21. He states “[i]t is Impossible to tell a more
Blatant, Obvious Lie.” Id. (capitalization in
original). He alleges that Ms. Rogers ignored his letters,
stating “your absolute, total disregard for my
well-being, and rights, is DEPLORABLE, beyond comprehension.
You and UNUM both accused me of lying and lied about
me.” Id. at 22. Also included with his
Complaint is a letter to Ms. Rogers disputing Unum's
determination and stating that “Shalom House as an
Employer has a Legal Responsibility, to make sure Employees
get Benefits paid for . . ..” Id. at 75. Mr.
alleges no other facts in his Complaint or the accompanying
exhibits relevant to his charges against Ms. Rogers.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and
12(b)(6) allows a defendant to move to dismiss a complaint
for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). “A defendant may
base such a motion on either or both of two grounds: (1) a
challenge to the ‘sufficiency of the pleading'
under Rule 8(a)(2); or (2) a challenge to the legal