Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02701/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02701-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

 Although Plaintiff titles his third motion as a "Motion for Summary Judgment

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," it is essentially a duplicate of

his motion for a default judgment.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles Edward Byrd, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2701-PHX-NVW (ECV)

ORDER

Pending before the court are Plaintiff's Motion for Status (Doc. #26), Motion

Demanding Judgment by Default (Doc. #27) and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

#29)1

. Defendants Arpaio, Peterson and O'Connell have filed a Response to Motion

Demanding Judgment by Default (Doc. #30) and a Response to Plaintiff's Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. #32). Plaintiff has not filed a reply for any of his motions.

In each of Plaintiff's motions, he claims he is entitled to relief because Defendants

failed to file a timely answer to Plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff is wrong. Under

Rule 12(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants' answer was due within

60 days of the day the request for service was sent to each of them. As the court docket

reflects, a waiver was sent to each of the three defendants on February 15, 2006. See Doc.

Case 2:04-cv-02701-NVW Document 35 Filed 05/22/06 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 -

#21 - #23. Accordingly, their answers were due on April 17, 2006. Defendants filed their

answer on the due date. See Doc. #28. Because Defendants' answer was timely, Plaintiff's

motions will be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

Plaintiff's Motion for Status (Doc. #26), Motion Demanding Judgment by Default

(Doc. #27) and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #29) are denied. 

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02701-NVW Document 35 Filed 05/22/06 Page 2 of 2