Hernandez v. Thomas, 2:17-CV-1803-KJM-DMC-P. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20181203721
Visitors: 10
Filed: Nov. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 30, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Pending before the court are: (1) "Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Reply" (Doc. 43) in which plaintiff responds to defendant's answer to the complaint and seeks additional time to file a further response to the answer; and (2) plaintiff's document entitled "Last Part of Plaintiff's Opposition Defendant's Reply to Complaint on Alleged 8th Aff
Summary: ORDER DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Pending before the court are: (1) "Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Reply" (Doc. 43) in which plaintiff responds to defendant's answer to the complaint and seeks additional time to file a further response to the answer; and (2) plaintiff's document entitled "Last Part of Plaintiff's Opposition Defendant's Reply to Complaint on Alleged 8th Affi..
More
ORDER
DENNIS M. COTA, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are: (1) "Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Reply" (Doc. 43) in which plaintiff responds to defendant's answer to the complaint and seeks additional time to file a further response to the answer; and (2) plaintiff's document entitled "Last Part of Plaintiff's Opposition Defendant's Reply to Complaint on Alleged 8th Affirmative Defense" (Doc. 48). To the extent plaintiff seeks additional time to file a reply to defendant's answer, the request will be denied because the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure do not provide for a reply to an answer. For the same reason, plaintiff's filings will be stricken to the extent they purport to reply to defendant's answer.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request for additional time (Doc. 43) is denied; and
2. Plaintiff's filings purporting to reply to defendant's answer (Docs. 43 and 48) are stricken.
Source: Leagle
