Phil Deckert v. Terre Haute Police Department, et al.

District Court, S.D. Indiana

Phil Deckert v. Terre Haute Police Department, et al.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

PHIL DECKERT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:25-cv-00258-MPB-MJD ) TERRE HAUTE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND SUA SPONTE STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S UNAUTHORIZED FILINGS

Pro se Plaintiff Phil Deckert moves for a more definite statement of Defendant's Answer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). [Dkt. 87.] He argues that Defendant's Answer does not adequately admit or deny all allegations in the Second Amended Complaint and that the ambiguities in Defendant's Answer will impede his ability to litigate this case. [Id.] Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. Rule 12(e) authorizes a motion for a more definite statement of a pleading "to which a responsive pleading is allowed[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). The Court has not authorized Plaintiff to reply to Defendant's Answer, which does not contain any counterclaims. Thus, a responsive pleading to Defendant's Answer is not allowed, and Plaintiff's motion for a more definite statement of Defendant's Answer under Rule 12(e) is improper. See Fuerstenberg v. Milwaukee Area Technical College,

2019 WL 2022664

, at *2 (E.D. Wis. May 8, 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)). The Court notes that Plaintiff has already filed an unauthorized Reply and Brief in Support of Reply to Defendant's Answer. [Dkts. 85; 86.] These unauthorized filings violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a), which provides an exhaustive list of the pleadings that are allowed in federal court. An unauthorized reply such as Plaintiff's may be stricken or disregarded. Mareska v. North Judson-San Pierre School Corp.,

1988 WL 492338

, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 5, 1988) (citing 2A J. Moore, W. Taggart & J. Wicker, Moore's Federal Practice and Procedure § 7.02 (2d ed. 1985)). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff's unauthorized filings make the record unclear, and the Court will strike rather than disregard them. Accordingly, Plaintiff's unauthorized Reply and Brief in Support of Reply [Dkts. 85 & 86] are hereby STRICKEN. SO ORDERED.

Dated: 15 DEC 2025 LM Marl J. Dinsmgre United StatesMagistrate Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: All ECF-registered counsel of record via email PHIL DECKERT 1540 Spruce St. Terre Haute, IN 47807

Reference

Status
Unknown