Filed: Nov. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2019
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response. [Doc. 35]. On June 17, 2019, the Court ordered that Plaintiff's allegations survived initial review as to Defendants Warden, FNU McCoy, and Sergeant L. Mott ("Defendants"). [Doc. 19]. On October 18, 2019, Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. [Doc. 32]. On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document he titled "Plaintiff's Response to Defend
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response. [Doc. 35]. On June 17, 2019, the Court ordered that Plaintiff's allegations survived initial review as to Defendants Warden, FNU McCoy, and Sergeant L. Mott ("Defendants"). [Doc. 19]. On October 18, 2019, Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. [Doc. 32]. On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document he titled "Plaintiff's Response to Defenda..
More
ORDER
FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response. [Doc. 35].
On June 17, 2019, the Court ordered that Plaintiff's allegations survived initial review as to Defendants Warden, FNU McCoy, and Sergeant L. Mott ("Defendants"). [Doc. 19]. On October 18, 2019, Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. [Doc. 32]. On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document he titled "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants Answer/Motion to Dismiss" ("Plaintiff's Response"), in which Plaintiff seeks essentially to rebut averments made in Defendants' Answer. [Doc. 34].
Defendants now move to strike Plaintiff's Response primarily on the ground that it exceeds the scope of the pleadings permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. 36 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a))].
For good cause shown, the Court will grant Defendant's motion and strike Plaintiff's Response [Doc. 34] as an improper pleading in this matter.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response [Doc. 35] is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff's Response [Doc. 34] is hereby STRICKEN from the record in this matter.
