JIMENEZ v. WHITFIELD, 2:10-cv-2943 KJM KJN P. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120604488
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 01, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 01, 2012
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On April 13, 2012, defendant Whitfield filed an answer. On April 27, 2012, plaintiff filed a response to the answer. However, 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 c
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On April 13, 2012, defendant Whitfield filed an answer. On April 27, 2012, plaintiff filed a response to the answer. However, 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 co..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On April 13, 2012, defendant Whitfield filed an answer. On April 27, 2012, plaintiff filed a response to the answer. However, 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) (emphasis added). The court has not ordered plaintiff to reply to defendant's answer and declines to make such an order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's April 27, 2012 response (dkt. no. 57) is disregarded.
Source: Leagle
