Filed: Mar. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2018
Summary: ORDER STRIKING REPLY TO DEFENDANT D. SMITH'S ANSWER [ECF No. 42] BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Alfonso Hall is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On February 5, 2018, Defendant D. Smith filed an answer to Plaintiff's second amended complaint. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's response to the answer, filed on February 28, 2018. (ECF No. 42.) In relevant part, the Federal Rules of Civil Pro
Summary: ORDER STRIKING REPLY TO DEFENDANT D. SMITH'S ANSWER [ECF No. 42] BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Alfonso Hall is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On February 5, 2018, Defendant D. Smith filed an answer to Plaintiff's second amended complaint. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's response to the answer, filed on February 28, 2018. (ECF No. 42.) In relevant part, the Federal Rules of Civil Proc..
More
ORDER STRIKING REPLY TO DEFENDANT D. SMITH'S ANSWER
[ECF No. 42]
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Alfonso Hall is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On February 5, 2018, Defendant D. Smith filed an answer to Plaintiff's second amended complaint. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's response to the answer, filed on February 28, 2018. (ECF No. 42.)
In relevant part, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that there shall be a complaint, an answer to a complaint, and, if the court orders one, a reply to an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). In this case, Plaintiff titles his response as a response to Defendant Smith's "counterclaims," but Defendant Smith has filed no counterclaims, and in reviewing Plaintiff's filing, it seeks to generally deny the answer and the defenses raised in the answer, and is therefore a reply to the answer. The Court has not ordered a reply to Defendant D. Smith's answer, and declines to make such an order.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's response to Defendant's answer, filed on February 28, 2018, (ECF No. 42), is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
