Ross #264301 v. Van Winkle et al
ORDER striking Plaintiff's 40 "Response" as an improper pleading. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 12/23/2014. (LFIG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Douglas Eric Ross,
No. CV-14-01480-PHX-NVW (ESW)
Jeffrey Van Winkle, et al.,
Plaintiff has filed a “Response by Plaintiff, Douglas Eric Ross, to defendant(s)
answer to Plaintiffs complaint” (Doc. 40). The Court strikes Plaintiff’s Response (Doc.
40) as an improper pleading.
Rule 7(a)(1) and (2), Fed.R.Civ.P, provides for a complaint and an answer to a
complaint. A reply to an answer is only permitted “if the court orders one.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
7(a)(7). Because the Court did not order a reply or a response to Defendants’ Answer
(Doc. 34), Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 40) is not authorized by Rule 7(a)(7), Fed.R.Civ.P.,
and it is an improper pleading. Therefore, Pursuant to Rule 4(m)(1), LRCiv., the Court
strikes the Response (Doc. 40) as a prohibited filing which is not authorized by statute,
rule, or Court order.
Dated this 23rd day of December, 2014.
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?