Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06496/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06496-7/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

TIMOTHY BUFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. VANG, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:00-CV-6496-REC-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

RE AMENDED ANSWER AND WAIVER OF

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, WITH

PREJUDICE 

(Doc. 190)

On October 20, 2005, plaintiff Buford (“plaintiff”) filed a motion entitled “Notice Motion

and Motion for Judicial and Evidetiary Estoppel as Waiver of all Defendants [sic] Affirmative

Defenses to Plaintiffs [sic] Frist [sic] Amended Complaint and Motion to Have Waived all

Unresponsive Defenses, and Rule 60 Determination and Motion for Default Judgment.” Plaintiff’s

motion is baseless and shall be denied. 

Defendant Broome (“defendant”) was personally served by the United States Marshal on

November 7, 2002. (Doc. 44.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A), defendant’s

response to the amended complaint was due on or before November 27, 2002. Defendant filed an

answer to the amended complaint on December 3, 2002. (Doc. 45.) As set forth in greater detail in

a separate order issued concurrently with this order, default was neither sought nor entered prior to

the date defendant filed his answer. Therefore, defendant was not and is not in default. 

On September 29, 2004, almost two years after defendant filed his answer, plaintiff filed a

motion to compel defendant to amend his answer. (Doc. 141.) Defendant filed a statement of

conditional non-opposition with a proposed amended answer and plaintiff filed a reply asserting that

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 194 Filed 10/31/05 Page 1 of 3
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

the proposed amended answer was still deficient. (Docs. 147, 148.) On July 8, 2005, the court

granted plaintiff’s motion in part in that the original answer fell short of compliance with Rule 8, but

denied plaintiff’s motion to the extent that plaintiff sought to cause defendant to further amend his

proposed amended answer. (Doc. 171.) The court ordered defendant to file his proposed amended

answer with the court within fifteen days, which defendant did. (Id.) Both defendant, in his

statement of conditional non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion, and the court, in its order, recognized

that plaintiff did not move for relief via a recognized motion, as a motion to compel is not the proper

vehicle by which to cause defendant to amend his answer, and that the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure do not provide for the remedy sought by plaintiff. (Docs. 147, 171.) Defendant, in

agreeing to amend his answer despite the fact that plaintiff had no basis upon which to demand the

relief he sought, acted in good faith. Plaintiff, by continuing to take issue with the amended answer,

is not.

Plaintiff himself caused an amended answer to be filed by raising the issue and demanding

that defendant be compelled to amend his answer. Plaintiff now asks the court to find that he has

been harmed by the filing of the amended answer and to deem defendant’s affirmative defenses

waived. The court declines to do so. Plaintiff’s position is utterly untenable. 

Plaintiff complains defendant has prejudiced him by adding new affirmative defenses. The

affirmative defenses set forth in the amended answer are identical to the affirmative defenses set

forth in the original answer. It is therefore untrue that new affirmative defenses were added and the

court finds that plaintiff’s contention to the contrary is in bad faith. 

The original answer contained a general two sentence denial. This insufficient general denial

was the basis for plaintiff’s request that defendant amend his answer. The amended answer was

altered to include fifty-seven separately enumerated paragraphs of admissions, denials, and

allegations. By necessity, it follows that it is these additions that plaintiff now quibbles with. 

A party who affirmatively and voluntary comes before this court to request a form of relief

will not be permitted to later complain that the relief he sought and won caused him prejudice and

therefore entitles him to new and different relief. Abusive litigation tactics such as that displayed

in the instant motion will not be tolerated. By first causing the amendment at issue to occur and then

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 194 Filed 10/31/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

claiming to be aggrieved by the amendment, plaintiff has wasted this court’s time and the

defendant’s time. It is clear that the court’s warnings to plaintiff to conduct himself properly and in

good faith have fallen on deaf ears. (E.g., docs 108, 109, 158.) Plaintiff is either unable or unwilling

to (1) make the distinction between sound motions based on good faith and groundless motions that

serve only to vex and harass this court and defendant, and (2) make tactical decisions accordingly.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice. Further,

because the motion is frivolous, plaintiff will, in a separate order, be ordered to show cause why

sanctions should not be imposed. No motions for reconsideration of this order directed to the

undersigned will be entertained.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 194 Filed 10/31/05 Page 3 of 3