Moncier v. Haslam et al (TV1)

Filing 23

ORDER that Plaintiffs Motion for the Court to Grant Judgment on the Pleadings and Establish a Schedule to Close the Pleadings on January 21, 2014 9 and Plaintiffs Motion to Defer Ruling on Said Motion Until After the Court Rules on Pending Motions to Amend 19 are hereby DENIED. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 1/22/14. (c/m to Mr. Moncier) (ABF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
HERBERT S. MONCIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BILL HASLAM, Governor of the State
of Tennessee, and
MARK GOINS, Tennessee Coordinator
of Elections,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

3:13-CV-630-TAV-HBG

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This civil action is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for the Court to Grant
Judgment on the Pleadings and Establish a Schedule to Close the Pleadings on January 21,
2014 [Doc. 9]. Plaintiff asks the Court to close the pleadings on January 21, 2014, and rule
on plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment and prospective injunctive relief. Defendants
oppose the motion, asserting it is premature [Doc. 12]. Plaintiff filed a reply and motion to
defer ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings until after the Court rules on his
pending motions to amend [Doc. 19].
On December 6, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint
[Doc. 7]. He then filed a motion to amend that request on December 27, 2013 [Doc. 10],
which the Court granted on January 2, 2014 [Doc. 11]. The Court directed defendants to
respond to the motion to amend the complaint on or before January 13, 2014, with any reply
from plaintiff due on or before January 21, 2014. Plaintiff filed yet another motion to amend
his complaint on January 21, 2014 [Doc. 20]. Given the status of this litigation and the

pending motions to amend the complaint, which, if granted, would add new parties to the
litigation, the Court finds plaintiff’s request to close the pleadings by January 21, 2014,
inappropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (allowing a party to move for judgment on the
pleadings “[a]fter the pleadings are closed”).
Plaintiff recognizes in his reply that “[t]he only pleading before the Court for
judgment on the pleadings is Plaintiff’s original October 18, 2013 complaint” [Doc. 19].
Because of his pending motion to amend that complaint, he asks the Court to “not hear
Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on January 30, 2014” and to defer ruling on
the motion for judgment on the pleadings until the Court rules on the motion to amend the
complaint. Plaintiff also requests that the Court “provide an expedited schedule for Plaitniff
[sic] to file an admended [sic] motion for judgement [sic] on the pleadings and/or motion for
summary judgment and for Defendants to respond . . . .” [Id.]. Given the procedural posture
of this case, the Court finds it appropriate to deny plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings at this time. Plaintiff may file any dispositive motion he deems appropriate upon
the Court’s ruling on the pending motions to amend.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for the Court to Grant Judgment on the Pleadings and
Establish a Schedule to Close the Pleadings on January 21, 2014 [Doc. 9] and Plaintiff’s
Motion to Defer Ruling on Said Motion Until After the Court Rules on Pending Motions to
Amend [Doc. 19] are hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2