Minute Qgder Form (0679

/

qa)

é United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Neesagerae | Mion Shoaur | Senet
CASE NUMBER 02 C 600 DATE 10/21/2002
CASE Joe N. Sherrod-Bey vs. Robert Griffin, et al
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
@M a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
Q) a Brief in support of motion due
@) a Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due__.
(C3) o Ruling/Hearingon___setfor___—_at
(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___———ssetfor_——s ats
(©) Qo Trial[set for/re-set for]on___at
(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) ClLocal Rule 41.1 CFRCP41(a(1) CFRCP41(a)(2).
ao) mf [Other docket entry] / Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Accordingly, Griffin’s answer is

stricken in its entirety. Leave is granted to Griffin to file a self-contained Amended Answer on or before
October 31, 2002, failing which all of the corresponding paragraphs of Sherrod-Bey’s Complaint will be
deemed admitted.

[For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. guncg on
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

SN

re |
courtroom fee

deputy's
initials

~ Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JOE N. SHERROD-BEY
Plaintiff
Case No. 02 C 0600

vs.

)

)

)

)

)

)
ROBERT GRIFFIN, PETER KING, )
Cc. CONDITT, G. BUSHEL, )
)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Robert Griffin (“Griffin”), represented by an Assistant
Attorney General, has filed an answer to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Complaint brought by Joe Sherrod-Bey (“Sherrod-Bey”) against
Griffin and three other defendants. This memorandum order is
issued sua sponte because Griffin's counsel reveals himself to be
among the federal practitioners who either have not read the
plain language of the Fed. Rules of Civ. P. (“Rules”) as to
responsive pleadings or, having read them, chooses to ignore
them.*

Rule 8(b)'s second sentence provides a safe harbor for a
pleader who is not in a position to either admit or deny a
plaintiff's allegation. Yet despite the clarity of the road map
marked out by that sentence, Griffin's Answer is chock full of

responses (or more accurately non-responses) that don't conform

x It may be a toss-up as to which of those alternatives
is worse, but for present purposes it doesn't matter.

A



to those requirements -- see Answer 4 6-11, 14, 15, 22-33, 52-53,
56-60, 62 (both paragraphs bearing that number), 64, 68 and 69.

In that respect, see Appendix 1 to State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.

v.Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001).

Accordingly, Griffin's answer is stricken in its entirety
(to eliminate any need to consult two separate documents to see
what and what is not being placed in issue). Leave is granted to
Griffin to file a self-contained Amended Answer on or before
October 31, 2002, failing which all of the corresponding

paragraphs of Sherrod-Bey's Complaint will be deemed admitted.

Ce Mon DG. ctu.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: October 21, 2002