U.S. v. Hoodenpyle

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RONALD R. HOODENPYLE, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Dec 5, 2006

Civil Action No. 05-cv-02230-WDM-BNB (D. Colo. Dec. 5, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-cv-02230-WDM-BNB.

December 5, 2006

ORDER

BOYD BOLAND, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before me on The United States' Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer [Doc. #11, filed 4/12/06] (the "Motion"). The Motion is DENIED.

On November 3, 2005, the plaintiff filed a "Complaint to Reduce Federal Tax Assessments to Judgment" [Doc. #1] (the "Complaint"). On March 24, 2006, the defendant filed a document entitled "All Documents Presented Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" [Doc. #8] (the "Answer")

The plaintiff asserts that the Answer fails to admit or deny the Complaint's averments as required by Rule 8(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., and it raises frivolous arguments and defenses. The plaintiff, therefore, seeks an order striking the defendant's Answer in its entirety as immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous under Rule 12(f), Fed.R.Civ.P.

The plaintiff is proceeding pro se. I must liberally construe the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Liberally construed, the Answer constitutes a denial. The plaintiff may challenge the defenses raised in the Answer in an appropriate dispositive motion.

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.