Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02482/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02482-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Javier Torres, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

Terry Goddard, Attorney General of

Arizona, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-2482-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Claims for Monetary

Relief filed by Defendants Terry Goddard and Cameron Holmes ("Defendants"). (Dkt. 24)

Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure ("Federal Rules"). On June 21, 2007, Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiffs’

First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 51) Once the answer was filed, it became procedurally

impossible for the Court to rule on the motion to dismiss. See 5 Wright & Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1361 (motions made after responsive pleading are technically

not 12(b) motions). A motion to dismiss challenges the sufficiency of the allegations within

the complaint while an answer admits or denies those allegations and raises any available

affirmative defenses. Therefore, the Court finds that the motion to dismiss has been rendered

moot by the filing of an answer. 

//

//

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 53 Filed 07/12/07 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'

Claims for Monetary Relief (Dkt. 24).

DATED this 12th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02482-SMM Document 53 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 2