Handy v. Diggins et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 27 Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Jury Trial and that all issues so triable will be tried to a jury, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 12/17/2010.(wjc, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 10cv02022WYDKMT WYATT T. HANDY JR., Plaintiff, v. CHIEF DIGGINS, MAJOR V. CONNORS, and CHAPLAIN SCOTT, Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the court on "Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Jury Trial" (Doc. No. 27, filed December 16, 2010). Prisoner Complaint did not contain a demand for a jury trial. (See Doc. No. 3.) Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b) requires that a demand for a jury trial on an issue so triable be made within ten days of the last pleading directed to the issue. "The `last pleading directed to such issue' will generally be an answer or a reply, if appropriate, and is determined on a claim by claim basis." In re Kaiser Steel Corp., 911 F.2d 380, 388 (10th Cir. 1990) (quoting E.R. Christenson v. Diversified Builders, Inc., 331 F.2d 992, 994-95 (10th Cir.1964)). Defendants have not filed an answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. As such, Plaintiff's demand for a jury trial is timely under Rule 38. Therefore, it is ORDERED that "Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Jury Trial" (Doc. No. 27) is GRANTED and that all issues so triable will be tried to a jury. Dated this 17th day of December, 2010. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?