Myers v. Hummel

Full title: BERNARD KENNETH MYERS, Plaintiff, v. DORWIN DWAYNE HUMMEL, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Mar 15, 2012

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00400-KMT-KLM (D. Colo. Mar. 15, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00400-KMT-KLM

03-15-2012

BERNARD KENNETH MYERS, Plaintiff, v. DORWIN DWAYNE HUMMEL, Defendant.

KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

Defendant's "Motion for More Definite Statement" (Doc. No. 146, filed Mar. 4, 2012) is DENIED. In his Motion, Defendant seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) to "clarify" purportedly incompatible positions raised in "Plantiff's [sic] Response to Defendants [sic] Motion for Summary Judgement" (Doc. No. 144, filed Feb. 9, 2012) and Plaintiff's "Motion to Amend Amended Complaint" (Doc. No. 143, filed Feb. 6, 2012).

Rule 12(e) provides 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). Simply put, neither Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment or Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Amended Complaint are pleadings as to which the court could order a more definite statement under Rule 12(e).