Bailey v. Fairfield Police Department, et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 14 Motion for More Definite Statement signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/24/11; Defendants shall timely file a pleading that is responsive to plaintiff's original complaint. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LEE JAMES BAILEY

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:10-cv-02295 JAM KJN P

vs.
FAIRFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,

14
Defendants.

ORDER

15
/
16
17

On July 20, 2011, in response to this court’s order filed June 23, 2011, plaintiff

18

timely filed an opposition to defendants’ motion for more definite statement. The court has

19

reviewed plaintiff’s opposition, again reviewed defendants’ motion, and reviewed the court’s

20

initial screening order. The undersigned finds that further briefing by plaintiff, or amendment of

21

the complaint, would not provide defendants with the clarity they seek. Therefore, this action

22

shall proceed on plaintiff’s original complaint. Defendants shall timely file a responsive

23

pleading, either an answer, or a motion to dismiss in which defendants may again raise relevant

24

contentions set forth in their motion for more definite statement.

25

////

26

////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Defendants’ motion for more definite statement (Dkt. No. 14) is denied

3

without prejudice; and

4

2. Defendants shall timely file a pleading that is responsive to plaintiff’s original

5

complaint.

6

DATED: August 24, 2011

7
8

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10

bail2295.ord.re.MDS

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2