M.D. Alabama Denies Dr. McDaniel Motion to Dismiss and Motion for More Definite Statement

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 31, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Howard William Barr v. YesCare and Randall J. McDaniel, D.M.D.

District Court, M.D. Alabama

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2:25-cv-00177

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

HOWARD WILLIAM BARR, )
AIS # 117790, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-CV-177-WKW
) [WO]
YESCARE and )
RANDALL J. McDANIEL, D.M.D., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court are Defendant Randall J. McDaniel, D.M.D.’s Motion to
Dismiss and Motion for a More Definite Statement. (Doc. # 26.) For the reasons to
follow, Defendant’s motions will be denied.
A. Rule 12(b)(5) Motion to Dismiss
Defendant moves the court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against him pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because he was not served
within the 90-day deadline imposed by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Doc. # 26 at 4.) Rule 4(m) provides:
If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed,
the court––on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff––must
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that
service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good
cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an
appropriate period.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). However, “Rule 4(m) grants discretion to the district court to
extend the time for service of process even in the absence of a showing of good
cause.” Horenkamp v. Van Winkle & Co., 402 F.3d 1129, 1132 (11th Cir. 2005).

Notwithstanding Defendant’s contention that “the Court, the Clerk, [Alabama
Department of Corrections], and others . . . went above and beyond the ‘reasonable
effort’ they were required to expend to find Dr. McDaniel” (Doc. # 26 at 7), these

efforts were not in vain. Dr. McDaniel has been served and is now a party to this
action and aware of Plaintiff’s claims against him. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s status as
a pro se inmate proceeding in forma pauperis necessitates heightened efforts to aid
Plaintiff in identifying and serving those he alleges have violated his federal

constitutional rights. Therefore, Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss for
insufficient service of process will be denied.
B. Rule 12(e) Motion for a More Definite Statement

Alternatively, Defendant moves the court to order Plaintiff to file a more
definite statement. Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
“[a] party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a
responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party

cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). “The motion . . . must
point out the defects complained of and the details desired.” Id. “A motion for a
more definite statement under Rule 12(e) is not to be employed as a substitute for
pre-trial discovery.” Herman v. Cont’l Grain Co., 80 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1297 (M.D.
Ala. 2000).

Here, Defendant asks that the court direct Plaintiff “to identify (1) the name
of the dentist with whom he interacted on each of the three dates that his complaint
describes, and (2) to the best of [Plaintiff’s] ability, to more specifically identify the

year and month of the encounter.” (Doc. # 26 at 8.) Plaintiff already has identified
Dr. McDaniel as “the dentist” (see Doc. # 15), an allegation that the court accepts as
true at this stage of litigation. Plaintiff further provides a two-year period during
which the alleged incidents involving the dentist occurred. (See Doc. # 1 at 2; Doc.

1-1 at 1–4.) Although Plaintiff’s allegations may be unartfully pled, his status as

a pro se inmate mandates a liberal reading of his complaint. Moreover, at this
juncture, granting Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement would do little

more than further delay the pre-trial discovery process. Accordingly, Defendant’s
Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement will be denied.
C. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 26) is
DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for a More Definite
Statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc.

26) is DENIED.

Defendant is DIRECTED to file an answer to the complaint on or before April
21, 2026.

DONE this 31st day of March, 2026.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE