From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Handy v. Diggins

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Dec 17, 2010
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02022-WYD-KMT (D. Colo. Dec. 17, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-cv-02022-WYD-KMT.

December 17, 2010


ORDER


This matter is before the court on "Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Jury Trial" (Doc. No. 27, filed December 16, 2010).

Prisoner Complaint did not contain a demand for a jury trial. ( See Doc. No. 3.) Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(b) requires that a demand for a jury trial on an issue so triable be made within ten days of the last pleading directed to the issue. "The `last pleading directed to such issue' will generally be an answer or a reply, if appropriate, and is determined on a claim by claim basis." In re Kaiser Steel Corp., 911 F.2d 380, 388 (10th Cir. 1990) (quoting E.R. Christenson v. Diversified Builders, Inc., 331 F.2d 992, 994-95 (10th Cir. 1964)). Defendants have not filed an answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. As such, Plaintiff's demand for a jury trial is timely under Rule 38. Therefore, it is ORDERED that "Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Jury Trial" (Doc. No. 27) is GRANTED and that all issues so triable will be tried to a jury.

Dated this 17th day of December, 2010.


Summaries of

Handy v. Diggins

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Dec 17, 2010
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02022-WYD-KMT (D. Colo. Dec. 17, 2010)
Case details for

Handy v. Diggins

Case Details

Full title:WYATT T. HANDY JR., Plaintiff, v. CHIEF DIGGINS, MAJOR V. CONNORS, and…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Dec 17, 2010

Citations

Civil Action No. 10-cv-02022-WYD-KMT (D. Colo. Dec. 17, 2010)