Shepard v. Quillen

Filing 44

ORDER Striking 43 Motion to Contend Defendnat Quillen's Affirmative Defenses, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 4/16/2011. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

LAMONT SHEPARD,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00809-LJO-SKO PC
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
CONTEND DEFENDANT QUILLEN’S
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

v.
T. QUILLEN, et al.,

13

(ECF. No. 43)
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Lamont Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At this juncture, this action is

17

proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed September 16, 2010, against Defendant T.

18

Quillen for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and J. Wise for retaliation in

19

violation of the First Amendment. Defendant Quillen filed an answer to the complaint on March 29,

20

2011. On April 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Motion to Contend Defendant Quillen[’s]

21

Affirmative Defenses” which stated that Plaintiff disagrees with the affirmative defenses in the

22

answer.

23

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, in relevant part, that there shall be a

24

complaint, an answer, and a reply to an answer if the court orders one. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). The

25

Court has not ordered a reply to the answer and declines to make such an order. Therefore Plaintiff’s

26

motion to contend Defendant Quillen’s affirmative defenses shall be stricken from the record.

27

///

28

///
1

1
2

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion, filed April 8, 2011, is
STRICKEN from the record.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:
icido3

April 16, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2