Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05192/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05192-11/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.

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-CV-5192-REC-SMS-P 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR A COURT ORDER REQUIRING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AMENDED

ANSWER CURING DEFICIENCIES AS

IDENTIFIED BY PLAINTIFF 

(Doc. 143)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE

AMENDED ANSWER CORRECTING

TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR REGARDING

FILING DATE FOR SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT

(Docs. 137, 141, 144)

Plaintiff Timothy Buford (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (Americans with Disabilities Act). This

action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed January 8, 2004, against

defendants Carbajal, Bindel, Huertas, Dobbs, Cheatham, Leong, and Songer (“defendants”) on

plaintiff’s ADA claim. On December 16, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a court order

requiring defendants to file an amended answer. 

Plaintiff seeks an order requiring defendants to amend their answer to respond by separate

paragraph to each numbered paragraph in the second amended complaint. Plaintiff contends that

because defendants responded to groupings of paragraphs in the second amended complaint rather

than each paragraph separately, he is confused regarding their responses. 

Case 1:01-cv-05192-SMS Document 150 Filed 04/20/06 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 federal system is one of notice pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. As plaintiff has been

previously notified by this court in a different action, “an answer shall contain ‘in short and plain

terms the party’s defenses to each claim asserted and shall admit or deny the averments upon which

the adverse party relies.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b). The function of the answer ‘is to put the case ‘at

issue’ as to all important matters alleged in the complaint that the defendant does not want to admit.’

JUDGE WILLIAM W. SCHWARZER ET AL., FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL § 8:197

(2005).” (Doc. 171 in CV-F-00-6496-REC-SMS-P Buford v. Vang, of which the court takes judicial

notice.) 

Plaintiff himself numbered the paragraphs in his second amended complaint and it is this

numbering system which guides defendants’ answer. For example, defendants state, “In response

to paragraphs 1 through 5, entitled Statement of the Case, Defendants admit that Plaintiff was

incarcerated at Wasco State Prison from November 2, 2000, to February 27, 2001; admit that

Defendants Bindel [,] Cheatham, Dobbs, Leong, and Songer were employed at Wasco State Prison

at the times alleged in the complaint; deny that Defendants can be sued in their individual capacities;

and admit that Defendants acted under color of state law. Defendants are without sufficient

information and belief to answer the remaining allegations and on that basis deny each and every

other allegation of paragraphs 1 through 5.” (Doc. 143, Motion, Attachment, 1:24-2:4.)

Plaintiff is not entitled to demand that defendants respond by separate paragraph to each and

every separate paragraph in his second amended complaint. There is no requirement that an answer

follow a set format. In each responsive paragraph, defendants identify the paragraphs in the second

amended complaint they are responding to, set forth the allegations they admit to, and deny, either

specifically or generally, the remaining allegations. The court is not persuaded that this format is

somehow deficient or that plaintiff is so confused by this format that he cannot determine which

allegations defendants have admitted and which allegations defendants have denied. Plaintiff’s

motion shall be denied. 

In reviewing defendants’ answers, the court notes that they identified the filing date for

plaintiff’s second amended complaint as January 8, 2005, rather than January 8, 2004. To avert any

///

Case 1:01-cv-05192-SMS Document 150 Filed 04/20/06 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

potential future issue concerning this error, defendants are directed to file an amended answer

correcting this error.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring defendants to file an amended answer in

which each paragraph in the complaint is responded to separately, filed December 16,

2005, is DENIED, with prejudice; and

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, defendants shall file

an amended answer correcting the date on which plaintiff’s second amended

complaint was filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05192-SMS Document 150 Filed 04/20/06 Page 3 of 3