Hodson v. Fisher et al

Filing 47

MINUTE ORDER denying 45 Motion for More Definite Statement Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 3/20/2017. (slibi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00446-MEH
TRAVIS HODSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY KROLL,
MATTHEW ELBE,
BRANDON WILLIAMS,
ROBYN JUBA,
STEVE REAMS,
UNKNOWN DEPUTY (A), and
UNKNOWN DEPUTIES,
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 20, 2017.
Plaintiff’s Motion [for] More Definite Statement Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) [filed
March 17, 2017; ECF No. 45] is denied for the following reasons.
First, Rule 12(e) provides that “[a] party may move for a more definite statement of a
pleading . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff seeks a more definite
statement from the Defendants concerning the pending motion to dismiss. However, a motion is not
a pleading and, thus, Rule 12(e) does not apply. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.
Second, even if Rule 12(e) applied, the Plaintiff provides no explanation nor other
information as to what in the motion he does not understand or that which he believes requires
clarification.
Third, the proceedings of this case, including briefing on the motion to dismiss, are currently
stayed pending the Status Conference next month.