Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

CRYSTAL LEANN “CLARIDA”

FITZWATER, et al. PLAINTIFFS

v. Civil No. 05-3056

JOHNNY L. NICHOLS, et al. DEFENDANTS 

O R D E R

On this 5th day of April 2006, the above referenced matter

comes on for consideration of Plaintiffs’ Crystal Leann “Clarida”

Fitzwater, Jerald W. Fitzwater and Alton Louis Vaughn, Sr. Motion

to Strike Defendant Johnny L. Nichols’s Answer to First Amended

Complaint (Doc. 65). The Court, being well and sufficiently

advised, finds and orders as follows: 

1. The plaintiffs initiated this action on September 22,

2005; and, then filed an amended complaint herein on November 9,

2005, naming as defendants Johnny L. Nichols, John Putman, Randel

Earl Clarida, Danny Hickman, Richard Bogue, Linda Adams, and Zeola

Yeager. 

2. Separate Defendant Johnny L. Nichols filed his Answer

(Doc. 53) to the First Amended Complaint on November 28, 2006.

The plaintiffs now move to strike Nichols’s Answer. 

3. The plaintiffs argue that Nichols’s Answer does not

comply with Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

4. In his response to the plaintiffs’ motion, Nichols

argues that the motion “sets forth neither a factual nor legal

basis upon which striking an answer would be appropriate” (Doc.

74). Further Nichols points out that Rule 36 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedures “pertains to requests for admission and has

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 111 Filed 04/05/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

nothing whatsoever to do with either the form or content of

pleadings.” 

5. Upon due consideration, this Court finds that

plaintiffs’ motion should be, and it hereby is, DENIED. Although

the plaintiffs rely on Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, that Rule does not apply to the content of an answer to

a complaint. Further, Nichols’s Answer appears to comply with the

applicable rules. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that

Plaintiffs’ Crystal Leann “Clarida” Fitzwater, Jerald W. Fitzwater

and Alton Louis Vaughn, Sr. Motion to Strike Defendant Johnny L.

Nichols’s Answer to First Amended Complaint (Doc. 65) should be,

and it hereby is, denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 111 Filed 04/05/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>