IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
December 14, 2005
JOHNNY M. RUFFIN, JR., PLAINTIFF,
WINNEBAGO COUNTY JAIL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants Mitchell, Wcyiskalla, Murry, Rea, Grubman, Pierce, Snyder, McKinney and Walls' affirmative defenses, or for a more definite statement, or to compel the defendants' to file a motion to dismiss, and to strike the affidavit of defendant Walls, which was attached to the defendants' answer. (Doc. 38). Plaintiff asserts that the affirmative defenses listed in the defendants' answer are so vague and ambiguous that he cannot form a responsive pleading. With respect to their affirmative defenses, defendants respond that no responsive pleading is required of plaintiff, and that the affirmative defenses speak for themselves. Defendants also observe that Walls' affidavit was inadvertently attached to the copy of their answer mailed to plaintiff, but it was never filed with the Court.
A review of defendants' answer reveals that they have enumerated multiple affirmative defenses, identifying legal principles and/or case law that allegedly are affirmative defenses to plaintiff's claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 requires no more of the defendants, and no response to those affirmative defense is required of plaintiff at this juncture. Defendants may very well file motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment based on those affirmative defenses, but the timing of any such motions is up to the defendants.
Plaintiff's motion to strike the affidavit of defendant Walls is moot, as the affidavit was not filed with the Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (Doc. 38) is DENIED in all respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CLIFFORD J. PROUD U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.