Smith v. Hernandez, 1:16-cv-01267-LJO-SAB (PC). (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180731750
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jul. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 30, 2018
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO ANSWER [ECF No. 72] STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Delbert J. Smith is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On July 19, 2018, Defendants Cramer, Hernandez, and Zuniga filed an answer to Plaintiff's first amended complaint. (ECF No. 68.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's reply to the answer. (ECF No. 72.) Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO ANSWER [ECF No. 72] STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Delbert J. Smith is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On July 19, 2018, Defendants Cramer, Hernandez, and Zuniga filed an answer to Plaintiff's first amended complaint. (ECF No. 68.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's reply to the answer. (ECF No. 72.) Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:..
More
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO ANSWER [ECF No. 72]
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Delbert J. Smith is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On July 19, 2018, Defendants Cramer, Hernandez, and Zuniga filed an answer to Plaintiff's first amended complaint. (ECF No. 68.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's reply to the answer. (ECF No. 72.)
Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:
There shall be a complaint and an answer; a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such; an answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a cross-claim; a third-party complaint, if a person who was not an original party is summoned under the provisions of Rule 14; and a third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is served. No other pleading shall be allowed, except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a third-party answer.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). The Court did not order Plaintiff to reply to Defendants' answer, nor did Plaintiff seek any leave to file a reply to the answer. The Court declines to require any reply to the answer.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's reply to Defendants Cramer, Hernandez, and Zunga's answer, filed on July 28, 2018 (ECF No. 72), is stricken from the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
