ROSS v. VAN WINKLE, CV-14-01480-PHX-NVW (ESW). (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20141224727
Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2014
Summary: ORDER EILEEN S. WILLETT, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff has filed a "Response by Plaintiff, Douglas Eric Ross, to defendant(s) answer to Plaintiffs complaint" (Doc. 40). The Court strikes Plaintiff's Response (Doc. 40) as an improper pleading. Rule 7(a)(1) and (2), Fed.R.Civ.P, provides for a complaint and an answer to a complaint. A reply to an answer is only permitted "if the court orders one." Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a)(7). Because the Court did not order a reply or a response to Defendants' Answer (D
Summary: ORDER EILEEN S. WILLETT, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff has filed a "Response by Plaintiff, Douglas Eric Ross, to defendant(s) answer to Plaintiffs complaint" (Doc. 40). The Court strikes Plaintiff's Response (Doc. 40) as an improper pleading. Rule 7(a)(1) and (2), Fed.R.Civ.P, provides for a complaint and an answer to a complaint. A reply to an answer is only permitted "if the court orders one." Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a)(7). Because the Court did not order a reply or a response to Defendants' Answer (Do..
More
ORDER
EILEEN S. WILLETT, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff has filed a "Response by Plaintiff, Douglas Eric Ross, to defendant(s) answer to Plaintiffs complaint" (Doc. 40). The Court strikes Plaintiff's Response (Doc. 40) as an improper pleading.
Rule 7(a)(1) and (2), Fed.R.Civ.P, provides for a complaint and an answer to a complaint. A reply to an answer is only permitted "if the court orders one." Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a)(7). Because the Court did not order a reply or a response to Defendants' Answer (Doc. 34), Plaintiff's Response (Doc. 40) is not authorized by Rule 7(a)(7), Fed.R.Civ.P., and it is an improper pleading. Therefore, Pursuant to Rule 4(m)(1), LRCiv., the Court strikes the Response (Doc. 40) as a prohibited filing which is not authorized by statute, rule, or Court order.
Source: Leagle
