Page, Vanessa I. v. City Lansing IL

182 F. App'x 556
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedMay 30, 2006
Docket05-3449
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 182 F. App'x 556 (Page, Vanessa I. v. City Lansing IL) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Page, Vanessa I. v. City Lansing IL, 182 F. App'x 556 (7th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

ORDER

Vanessa Page appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her civil rights complaint against the City of Lansing, Illinois; two Lansing police officers; and Avis Rent a Car. The allegations in Page’s complaint are disjointed and unclear, but she seems to allege that Lansing police officers violated her civil rights by wrongfully arresting her for stealing a car that she had lawfully purchased. She also appears to accuse Avis of defaming her by giving false statements to the authorities regarding her role in car theft. The district court dismissed this complaint for failure to state a claim, noting that the complaint “was utterly incoherent” and did “not state on the most general and simplest level, what the bases of this suit are in such a manner that would enable any of the Defendants to discern what claim is being brought against them.”

Page’s brief on appeal is difficult to understand, and she does not address the district court’s conclusion that her complaint failed to satisfy notice pleading standards. Instead she asserts only that the court erroneously dismissed her complaint because the defendants had first defaulted by not answering her complaint in a timely fashion. According to Page, the court *557 should have granted a motion she had filed for default judgment.

The district court was within its discretion not to grant Page’s motion because the defendants never defaulted. Defendants must respond to a complaint within 20 days of being served, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(A), by filing either an answer or “another appropriate document such as a motion to dismiss, or a motion for extension of time.” Verkuilen v. S. Shore Bldg. and Mortgage Co., 122 F.3d 410, 411 (7th Cir.1997). Here, the defendants moved within 20 days of service for an extension of time. The district court granted these motions, and it was within the extended time period that the defendants then moved to dismiss the complaint.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ericson v. Woloszyk
N.D. Illinois, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 F. App'x 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/page-vanessa-i-v-city-lansing-il-ca7-2006.