Minutg'Order Form (257)

United States District Court, Northern District of [ino

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Sitting Judge if Other

Milton I. Shadur i
than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 02 C 7359 DATE Y/2003
CASE Richard Banske vs. Gerald Tarka
TITLE
Lin the Following hox (u) indicate the party filing the motion, wg, plaintil?, defendant, 3rd party plaintitt, and (b} state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

Mail AO 450 Jom.

(1) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) tl Bricf in support of motion due

G) o Answer brief to motion duc_, . Reply to answer brief due

(4) O Ryling/Hearing on set for __at

(5) oO Status hearing[hed/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on _ set for at

(6) Oo Pretrial conterence[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for] on set for _ at

) a Trial|set for/re-set for] on at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [[learing] held/continued to at

(9) im This case is dismissed | with/without] prejudice and without costs|by/agreement/pursuant to}

DFRCP4(m) CO Local Rule 41.1. CO FRCP41(a)(1) O FRCP4I(a)(2).

(10) a [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order, To enable the reader to look al a
single responsive pleading rather than a patchwork combination, the entire Answer is stricken. Leave is
of course granted to file a self-contained Amended Answer in this Court’s chambers (with a copy of
course being transmitted to plaintiffs’ counsel) on or before January 13, 2003.

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

No notives requited, advised in open court, Document
No notices required. saver afnouces Nother
wv | Notices mailed by judge's staf.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing lo mail notices.

Copy 10 judgc/magistrate judge.

JAN ase Rr 2003

“

\

Hocking depuy mig

27008

SN

ante wailed notice
courtnort

deputy’s
initials

SN

i
Dule/tine received in

central Clerk's Ofticc railing deputy seaciats



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION 1

RICHARD BANSKE and
MICHAEL FLANAGAN,

Plaintiffs,

Vv. No. 02 C 7359

GERALD TARKA, Individually Honorable Judge Shadur
and As Alderman of the City
Calumet City, THADDEUS JONES,
Individually and as Alderman
of the City of Calumet City,
ROMAYNE BUBLICH, Individually
and as Alderman of the City
of Calumet City, and GEORGE
VALLIS, Individually and as
Chief of Police Of The City
of Calumet City,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM_OPINION AND _ ORDER

Having failed in their effort to reject thia action as
insufficient in law (on December 11, 2002 this Court denied orally
their Fed. R. Civ, P. (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the
Complaint), defendants have now filed their Answer to the Complaint
in which they have been sued (1) with a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and
(2) with four state law claims, included pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a). Even though defense counsel have sought to be meticulous
in their responses, some flaws require them to replead.

For one thing, it will not do for any defendants to decide
that certain allegations “are not directed against them,” and thus

to decline to respond to those allegations. That type of locution

\\


thus to decline to respond to those allegations. That type of
locution may be in order once the Complaint has turned to its
individual counts under which fewer than all defendants are
targeted, but up to that point each defendant must respond to
each allegation in one of the three ways permitted by Rule 8(b) --
it doés not matter that the answering defendant may not be named
in the allegation being responded to.

Next, Answer 94 16 and 22 have in part departed from the
disclaimer set out in the second sentence of Rule 8(b) as the
price for a deemed denial. That too must be corrected--see App.

{1 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v, Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276,

278 (N.D. Ill. 2001)

Finally, the several assertions (Answer {f 17, 18, 19 and
23) that a document “speaks for itself" are also not permissible
responses, In that respect, see App. J 3 to State Farm.

To enable the reader to look at a single responsive pleading
rather than a patchwork combination, the entire Answer is
stricken. Leave is of course granted to file a self-contained
Amended Answer in this Court's chambers (with a copy of course

being transmitted to plaintiffs' counsel) on or before January

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

13, 2003.

January 2, 2003