Rodriguez, Eric v. Haines, Timothy et al

Filing 26

ORDER that plaintiff Eric Rodriguez's 25 reply to the answers will be placed in the court's file but will not be considered. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 12/17/2014. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ERIC RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
14-cv-86-jdp
TIMOTHY HAINES, KEITH JANTZEN,
MARLA WALTERS, ROBERT HABLE
and KELLY TRUMM 1,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Eric Rodriguez was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case on his
claims that defendants Haines, Jantzen, Walters, Hable and Trumm violated his due process
rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. On November 17, 2014 defendants filed
an answer to plaintiff’s complaint, raising various affirmative defenses. Now plaintiff has filed
a response to the answer. See dkt. 25. Because the answer is not a pleading that requires a
response, I will not consider plaintiff’s reply.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) permits defendants to avoid litigation of a case if plaintiff's
allegations of fact, even if accepted as true, would be insufficient to make out a legal claim
against the defendants. Although the defendants denied many the statements in plaintiff’s
complaint and raised certain affirmative defenses in their answer, defendants have not filed a
motion to dismiss. If they did, then plaintiff would be allowed to respond to it. Otherwise, it
is not necessary for plaintiff to respond to defendant’s answer. Indeed, Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7)
forbids a plaintiff to submit a reply to an answer unless the court directs a reply to be filed. No
such order will be made in this case. In addition, averments in pleadings to which a response

1

I have amended the caption to identify “Sgt. Jantzen” as Keith Jantzen, “M s. W alters” as
M arla W alters, “R. Hable” as Robert Hable and “K. Trumm” as Kelly Trumm, which is how the
defendants are identified in the Acceptance of Service.

is not allowed are assumed to be denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6). Because of those rules, this
court does not need plaintiff to reply to the answer; instead, the court automatically assumes
that plaintiff has denied the factual statements and affirmative defenses raised in that answer.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Eric Rodriguez’s reply to the answers, dkts 25, will be
placed in the court’s file but will not be considered.

Entered this 16th day of December, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge