Myers v. Hummel

Filing 150

MINUTE ORDER denying 146 Motion for More Definite Statement. By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 3/15/2012.(jjpsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 11–cv–00400–KMT–KLM

BERNARD KENNETH MYERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DORWIN DWAYNE HUMMEL,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
Defendant’s “Motion for More Definite Statement” (Doc. No. 146, filed Mar. 4, 2012) is
DENIED. In his Motion, Defendant seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) to “clarify”
purportedly incompatible positions raised in “Plantiff’s [sic] Response to Defendants [sic]
Motion for Summary Judgement” (Doc. No. 144, filed Feb. 9, 2012) and Plaintiff’s “Motion to
Amend Amended Complaint” (Doc. No. 143, filed Feb. 6, 2012).
Rule 12(e) 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) (emphasis added). Simply put, neither
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend his Amended Complaint are pleadings as to which the court could order a more definite
statement under Rule 12(e).
Dated: March 15, 2012