U.S. District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel issued the order on May 15 in Friends of Bell Smith Springs and the Regional Association of Concerned Environmentalists v. United States Forest Service.
The environmentalist groups moved to strike the Forest Service’s answer, arguing it failed to comply with Rule 8(b), which permits only admissions, denials, or claims of insufficient knowledge to form a belief.
Rosenstengel identified that the agency’s answer deviated in at least 24 instances, including responses that characterized allegations as legal conclusions or stated that no response was required.
Under the plain text of Rule 8(b)(6), an allegation is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied.
The judge noted that the Forest Service’s initial answer had been struck previously for failing to comply with Rule 8(b) entirely, with the agency arguing that normal pleading rules did not apply to Administrative Procedure Act review actions.
The current answer, however, was an attempt to comply with the rules, Rosenstengel wrote, and the plaintiffs failed to show specific prejudice from the non-standard responses.
The court declined to strike the answer again, citing judicial economy and the fact that the case had already seen multiple rounds of amended complaints and a motion for summary judgment.
Instead, Rosenstengel exercised her discretion to deem admitted any allegation to which the Forest Service provided a response other than a denial or a claim of insufficient knowledge.
The ruling applies to all allegations amended complaint, except those concerning subject matter jurisdiction, which cannot be waived.
The judge granted the defendants leave to file an amended answer if they choose, setting a deadline of May 21, 2026.