Hestdalen v. Corrizon Corrections Healthcare et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a more definite statement as to defendants' affirmative defenses is DENIED. [ECF No. 32 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to reply to defendants' answers and affirmative defenses is DENIED. [ECF No. 33 ]. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 11/6/2018. (CLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
NORTHERN DIVISION
DANNY D. HESTDALEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON CORRECTIONS
HEALTHCARE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:18-CV-39-JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on pro se plaintiff Danny D. Hestdalen’s motion for more
definite statement and motion for an extension of time to respond to defendants’ answers and
affirmative defenses. For the following reasons, the motions will be denied.
On September 13, 2018, defendants Corizon, LLC, John DeGhetto, Ruanne Stamps,
Bonnie Boley, Geneen Wilhite, Debbie Willis, Laurel Davison, and Trinidad Aguilera (“Corizon
defendants”) filed their answer and affirmative defenses to plaintiff’s civil rights complaint. On
September 14, 2018, defendant Lisa Pogue filed her answer and affirmative defenses.
On October 4, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a more definite statement as to
defendants’ affirmative defenses. Plaintiff cites to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) as his
basis for this motion. Rule 12(e) states 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). Rule
12(e)’s provision for a more definite statement applies only to pleadings “to which a responsive
pleading is allowed.” Responses to answers are only allowed if the Court orders one. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7). The Court has not ordered plaintiff to respond to defendants’ answers.

Because defendants’ answers and affirmative defenses are not pleadings to which a responsive
pleading is allowed, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motion for a more definite statement as to
these pleadings.
On November 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to reply to
defendants’ answer and affirmative defenses. Again, a response to an answer is allowed only if
ordered by the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7). The Court has not ordered plaintiff to respond
to defendants’ answers, and therefore it will deny plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to
file such a response.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a more definite statement as to
defendants’ affirmative defenses is DENIED. [ECF No. 32]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to reply to
defendants’ answers and affirmative defenses is DENIED. [ECF No. 33]
Dated this 6th Day of November, 2018.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-