The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ricardo M. Urbina United States District Judge
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE DEFENDANTS'MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS'MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
This matter is before the court on the defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement. The plaintiff, a resident of Maryland, brings a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 against Robert M. Gates and Pete Geren, who are, respectively, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army. For the reasons discussed below, the court denies without prejudice the motion to dismiss and grants the motion for a more definite statement.
II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual allegations of the plaintiff's complaint are the following:
C On or about November 12, 2004, the Plaintiff was conducting a lawful deposition of Defendants' agent.
C Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, Defendants' agent(s) had conspired and arranged for Plaintiff to be arrested in an attempt to prevent the deposition, as well as irreparably harm Plaintiff and . . . Plaintiff's reputation, as well as Plaintiff's law practice.
C Subsequent to Plaintiff's arrest, one of Defendant's agents telephoned Plaintiff and profusely apologized, in his capacity as Defendant's agent, to Plaintiff, for Plaintiff's unlawful arrest, detention and confinement.
C That notwithstanding, the other Defendants' agents continued to defame Plaintiff by circulating a PDF file containing defamatory and inflammatory statements against the Plaintiff as though they were true and accurate even though they knew the same were false and misleading.
C Additionally, the Defendants' agents attempted to use information they knew to be false, defamatory and/or inflammatory against the Plaintiff in an effort to have Plaintiff removed as counsel on cases involving Defendants' agents, in an effort to drive Plaintiff from the practice of law.
C No indictment was ever presented against the Plaintiff and Plaintiff was further completely vindicated of the false charges against her.
Compl. ¶¶ 6-11. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated her rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by causing her arrest (Count 1), her detention and confinement (Count 2) and her strip search (Count 3), as well as by conspiring to violate her constitutional rights (Count 4) and refusing or neglecting to prevent violations of her constitutional rights (Count 5). See id. ¶¶ 12-24. In addition, the plaintiff claims tortious interference with contract (Count 6), and malicious prosecution and abuse of process (Count 7). See id. ¶¶ ...