Atcherley v. Clark et al

Filing 208

ORDER Striking 146 Answer to Plaintff's Second Amended Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 01/27/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

WILBUR ATCHERLEY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv00225 LJO DLB PC
ORDER STRIKING ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
(Document 146)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff Wilbur Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action.
On September 10, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended
complaint in part. Specifically, Plaintiff was permitted to name Doe Defendants and add
allegations against them. The Court also stated, “[a]s the Second Amended Complaint will not
alter any allegations against any Defendant who has appeared, amended answers are not
necessary.” ECF No. 110, at 7.

24
25
26
27
28

On November 4, 2014, Defendants Clark, Ceballos, Borbolla, Holt, Rios, Torres, Abadia
and Ross filed an answer to the Second Amended Complaint.
On December 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed “objections” to paragraphs 49 and 50 of the
November 4, 2014, answer. Plaintiff argues that Defendants altered these paragraphs from
1

1
2
3
4

admissions to denials. He contends that he relied on the admissions during the discovery
process, and discovery is now closed.
On January 5, 2015, the Court ordered Defendants to respond to the objections.
Defendants filed their response on January 21, 2015. Defendants explain that the first

5

alteration was in response to a different exhibit to the Second Amended Complaint, and that the
6
7
8
9

second alteration was inadvertent. In any event, Defendants did not intend to negate their
admissions from their prior answers.
Defendants suggest that the Court strike their November 4, 2014, answer, which would

10

leave their March 14, 2014, answer as the operative pleading. This will alleviate any confusion,

11

as well as the need to reopen discovery.

12
13

Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Defendants’ November 4, 2014, answer (Document
146) from the docket.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

January 27, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2