Mack v. California Department of Corrections

Filing 17

***DISREGARDED***ORDER Striking Plaintiff's 42 Response to Defendant's Answer signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 09/25/2017. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 PABLO HOLGUIN, 7 8 9 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:06-cv-00346-DAD-BAM (PC) ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S ANSWER v. (ECF No.42) R. WICKS, 10 Defendant. 11 12 Plaintiff Pablo Holguin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 13 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 14 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant Wicks for violation of Due Process for 15 denial of Plaintiff’s right to call an identified witness in his defense. (ECF No. 29.) 16 17 On August 8, 2017, Defendant Wicks answered Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 36.) On September 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s answer. (ECF No. 42.) 18 In relevant part, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that there shall be a 19 complaint, an answer to a complaint, and, if the court orders one, a reply to an answer. Fed. R. 20 Civ. P. 7(a). The Court has not ordered a reply to Defendant’s answer and declines to make such 21 an order. 22 23 24 25 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s answer, filed on September 21, 2017, (ECF No. 42), is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara September 25, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 1

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?