ROBINSON v. DAVIS, 5:12CV00109 JLH/BD. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20120510830
Visitors: 34
Filed: May 09, 2012
Latest Update: May 09, 2012
Summary: ORDER LEON HOLMESW, District Judge. In his complaint, Latarris Keith Robinson claims that his constitutional rights were violated after a disturbance at the Varner Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction in February 2011. He has now moved for default judgment against defendant Corderro R. Davis. Robinson argues that Davis is in default for failing to respond to the complaint within twenty-one days, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(i). On March 30, 2012, the Co
Summary: ORDER LEON HOLMESW, District Judge. In his complaint, Latarris Keith Robinson claims that his constitutional rights were violated after a disturbance at the Varner Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction in February 2011. He has now moved for default judgment against defendant Corderro R. Davis. Robinson argues that Davis is in default for failing to respond to the complaint within twenty-one days, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(i). On March 30, 2012, the Cou..
More
ORDER
LEON HOLMESW, District Judge.
In his complaint, Latarris Keith Robinson claims that his constitutional rights were violated after a disturbance at the Varner Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction in February 2011. He has now moved for default judgment against defendant Corderro R. Davis. Robinson argues that Davis is in default for failing to respond to the complaint within twenty-one days, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1)(A)(i).
On March 30, 2012, the Court ordered that Davis be served. On April 13, 2012, however, service was returned unexecuted for Davis, and a different address for Davis was filed under seal. Document #21.
On May 4, 2012, a summons was reissued for Davis. At this time, there is nothing in the record to show that Davis has been served. Once he is served, Davis will have twenty days to respond to the complaint. The time for Davis to respond to the complaint has not yet run. Therefore, the motion for default judgment is DENIED. Document #39.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
