Irvin v. Coleman

• Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
• Decided: September 14, 2020
• Docket: 5:20-cv-00005
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA WAYCROSS DIVISION

FREDDIE LEWIS IRVIN,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:20-cv-5

v.

JEFF COLEMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Doc. 13. The Court has not yet conducted the requisite frivolity screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint has not been served on any Defendant. Motions for judgment on the pleadings are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), which states, “After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” However, “[t]the pleadings are closed only when a complaint and answer have been filed.” Lillian B. ex rel. Brown v. Gwinnett Cty. Sch. Dist., 631 F. App’x 851, 853 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)).1 Because Plaintiff’s Complaint has not been served, his Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is

1 Rule 7(a) governs pleadings and sets forth a limited list of permissible pleadings: “Only these pleadings are allowed: (1) a complaint; (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; (4) an answer to a crossclaim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) an answer to a third-party complaint; and (7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.” The Rule’s express provision for an answer to a complaint anticipates that the pleadings do not “close” until an answer has been filed by the defendant. See Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329, 1336 (11th Cir. 2014). procedurally premature. Accordingly, IRECOMMEND the Court DENY as premature Plaintiffs Motion. SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED, this 14th day of September, 2020.

BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA