Ross #264301 v. Van Winkle et al

Filing 44

ORDER striking Plaintiff's 40 "Response" as an improper pleading. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 12/23/2014. (LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Douglas Eric Ross,

No. CV-14-01480-PHX-NVW (ESW)
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Jeffrey Van Winkle, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff has filed a “Response by Plaintiff, Douglas Eric Ross, to defendant(s)

16

answer to Plaintiffs complaint” (Doc. 40). The Court strikes Plaintiff’s Response (Doc.

17

40) as an improper pleading.

18

Rule 7(a)(1) and (2), Fed.R.Civ.P, provides for a complaint and an answer to a

19

complaint. A reply to an answer is only permitted “if the court orders one.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

20

7(a)(7). Because the Court did not order a reply or a response to Defendants’ Answer

21

(Doc. 34), Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 40) is not authorized by Rule 7(a)(7), Fed.R.Civ.P.,

22

and it is an improper pleading. Therefore, Pursuant to Rule 4(m)(1), LRCiv., the Court

23

strikes the Response (Doc. 40) as a prohibited filing which is not authorized by statute,

24

rule, or Court order.

25

Dated this 23rd day of December, 2014.

26
27
28

Honorable Eileen S. Willett
United States Magistrate Judge