Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01186/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01186-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENE ARROYO

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO STRIKE DEFENDANT MATTHEWS’

ANSWER

(ECF No. 31)

Plaintiff Rene Arroyo (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action. Plaintiff is proceeding on his original complaint, filed, July 19, 2011. 

On April 30, 2012, the Court issued an order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve the complaint 

on defendants D. Adams, D. Leon, D. Matthews, R. Hubach, R. Schneider, and T. Carter by 

October 1, 2012. (ECF No. 11.) On March 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendant 

Matthews’ answer for failure to file a responsive pleading within the proscribed time pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. (ECF No. 31.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 requires that unless another time is specificed, a 

defendant serve a responsive pleading as follows:

(i) within 21 days after being served with the summons and 

complaint; or

(ii) if it has timely waived service under Rule 4(d), within 60 

days after the request for a waiver was sent. . .

///

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 55 Filed 11/13/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Here, the executed waiver of service shows that the summons and complaint was initially 

mailed on June 7, 2012, as Plaintiff points out in his motion. (ECF No. 27 at 2.) However, the 

actual date of service was January 2, 2013. Id. On January 30, 2013, Defendant Matthews 

returned the waiver ofservice of summons, which in turn allowed him sixty (60) sixty days to file 

a responsive pleading from the January 2, 2013 date of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(1)(A)(ii); 

(ECF No. 27.) On February 5, 2013, Defendant Matthews filed an answer. (ECF No. 28.) As 

such, the Court finds that Defendant Matthews timely filed a responsive pleading.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant 

Matthews’ answer is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Si gnat ure- END:

3b142a

Case 1:11-cv-01186-AWI-DLB Document 55 Filed 11/13/13 Page 2 of 2