Thomas v. Fuentes et al

Filing 57

ORDER denying 55 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 7/11/11. (anj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL THOMAS, #B-71744,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. FUENTES, DR. FEINERMAN,
STEPHEN PLATT, MARY ANN
KOHRING, DEANA MEDFORD, CHARD
TODARO, and DEREK FLATT,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10–cv–902–MJR–SCW

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants Flatt, Platt, and Todaro
for Adequate Answer to Complaint (Doc. 55). On November 10, 2010 Plaintiff filed his Complaint
against various Defendants for deliberate indifference toward an ankle injury he received on the
basketball courts while housed at Menard Correctional Center (Doc. 1). On March 31, 2011, the Court
completed its review under § 1915 and found that Plaintiff had adequately alleged a claim against the
Defendants for deliberate indifference (Doc. 11). Requests for waiver of service were sent to
Defendants Flatt, Platt, and Todaro on March 31, 2011 and were returned executed on April 25, 2011
(Docs. 14, 19, 29, 31, 32). An Answer date was set for May 31, 2011.
On June 14, 2011, Defendants Flatt, Platt, and Todaro filed their Answer to Plaintiff’s
Complaint (Doc. 52). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion to Compel alleging that their
Answer was inadequate and requesting that the Defendants file a more complete response. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant denied certain paragraphs of his Complaint or stated they lacked
knowledge of some of his allegations when Plaintiff alleges that the record supports his claims.

Defendants have filed a Response in opposition to the motion arguing that they have complied with
the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 56).
Here, the Court agrees with Defendants arguments. It appears that Plaintiff is merely
dissatisfied with Defendants failure to admit liability in its Answer or their refusal to agree with all
allegations alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. However, all that is required under Rule 8 of the Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure is that a responding pleading “state in short and plain terms its
defenses...and...admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.”

Se e

FED .R.CIV.P. 8(b). Further, a denial from a party “must fairly respond to the substance of the
allegation.” Se e FED .R.CIV.P. 8(b)(2). Further, a party may also state that they lack sufficient
knowledge if they lack “knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an
allegation”. Se e FED .R.CIV.P. 8(b)(5). Here, it appears that Defendants have complied with the
requirements set forth in Rule 8. They have denied certain allegations and have also stated in response
to several paragraphs that they lack sufficient knowledge which is an adequate response to Plaintiff’s
allegations under Rule 8. That Defendants have not answered the way that Plaintiff wants them to or
the way in which would best help Plaintiff’s case is not reason enough to compel a further response or
Amended Answer. As Defendants state in their Response, the course of litigation will provide Plaintiff
with opportunities to prove his allegations; Defendants are not required to admit to allegations that they
believe are untrue. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 55).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 11, 2011.
/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2