Butler v. Peak, No. 2:2010cv00857 - Document 88 (E.D. La. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER & REASONS denying pla's 69 Motion for Demand for Judgment for Relief and 80 Motion to Close Pleadings. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 11/1/2010. (rll, ) Modified on 11/2/2010 to edit doc type (rll, ).

Download PDF
Butler v. Peak Doc. 88 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MARY E. BUTLER CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 10-0857 ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS SECTION: R(5) ORDER AND REASONS In this Title VII employment discrimination case, plaintiff Mary Butler moves for judgment in her favor1 and also moves to close the pleadings.2 The Court construes plaintiff’s pro se motions liberally in her favor. 740 (5th Cir. 2002). Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, Nonetheless, plaintiff’s motion for judgment must be denied as premature. Defendant has not yet filed an answer, and the issues in this case have not been joined. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide a mechanism for plaintiff to obtain judgment prior to the closing of the pleadings. For example, a party may move for judgment under Rule 12(c) only “[a]fter the pleadings are closed.” Additionally, summary judgment for the plaintiff under Rule 56 would be entirely premature. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (summary judgment may be appropriate “after adequate time for discovery”). 1 R. Doc. 69. 2 Further, plaintiff has not stated R. Doc. 80. Dockets.Justia.com a basis for judgment in her favor at this time. Plaintiff also moves to close the pleadings, but she provides no justification for closing the pleadings at this time, particularly in light of the fact that she just filed an amended complaint on October 13, 2010.3 Defendant must have an opportunity to respond to plaintiff’s pleadings, as set forth in Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motions are DENIED. 1st New Orleans, Louisiana, this ____ day of November, 2010. _____________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 R. Doc. 83.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.