Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03056-6/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 Separate Defendants’ Danny Hickman and Richard Bogue

Answer to First Amended Complaint (Doc. 69). 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 Defendants Danny Hickman and Richard Bogue

filed the Separate Boone County Defendants’ Answer to Amended

Complaint (Doc. 52) on November 21, 2006. The plaintiffs now move

to strike Hickman and Bogue’s answer. 

3. The plaintiffs argue that the separate defendants’

pleading does not comply with Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Further, the plaintiffs argue that the

pleading’s “blanket response[s] are most certainly insufficient;”

and, that “reasonable inquiry” was not made into plaintiffs’

allegations. 

Case 3:05-cv-03056-JLH Document 112 Filed 04/05/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

4. In their response to the plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 79),

the separate defendants argue that the motion is “largely

nonsensical and is entirely frivolous, apparently intended only to

burden the record and harass the Separate County Defendants.”

Further, the separate defendants point out that Rule 36 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedures does not apply, as it “deals

entirely with Requests for Admission, not Answers to Complaints.“

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, the separate defendants’ 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 Separate Defendants’

Danny Hickman and Richard Bogue Answer to First Amended Complaint

(Doc. 69) 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 112 Filed 04/05/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>