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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?