Atcherley v. Clark et al

Filing 66

ORDER Granting Defendant Anderson's Motion To Strike Answer (Document 65 ), ORDER Striking Defendant Anderson's Answer (Document 59 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/22/2014. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILBUR ATCHERLEY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12cv00225 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
ANDERSON’S MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER
(Document 65)
ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT
ANDERSON’S ANSWER
(Document 59)

17

Plaintiff Wilbur Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

18

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20
21
22

This action is proceeding against Defendants Ceballos, Borbolla, Holt, Rios, Torres, Ross,
Alade, Abadia and Anderson. The action is currently in the discovery phase.
On May 20, 2014, James Mathison, the Deputy Attorney General who represents numerous

23

Defendants in this action, filed a request to withdraw and/or strike Defendant Anderson’s answer, filed

24

on May 13, 2014. According to Mr. Mathison, the answer was inadvertently filed on behalf of

25

Defendant Anderson without an authorization for representation. Mathison Decl. ¶ 4. The day after

26
27

inadvertently filing the answer, Mr. Mathison was informed that Defendant Anderson would be
represented by outside counsel. Mathison Decl. ¶ 5. Outside counsel is prepared to file a responsive

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

pleading on behalf of Defendant Anderson and requested that Mr. Mathison file the instant request.
Mathison Decl. ¶ 5.
Courts have the inherent power to control their docket and in the exercise of that power, they
may properly strike documents. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404-05 (9th
Cir. 2010). As it appears that Defendant Anderson was not represented by the Attorney General’s
Office at the time the answer was filed, the Court finds that the document should be stricken.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Anderson’s motion to strike and STRIKES the
answer filed on May 13, 2014 (Document 59).
Defendant Anderson SHALL file a responsive pleading within ten (10) days of the date of
service of this order. The May 14, 2014, order extending the Discovery and Scheduling Order to
Defendant Anderson SHALL remain in effect.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

May 22, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2