Gorrell v. Sneath et al

Filing 22

ORDER DISREGARDING Reply to Answer 21 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/22/2012. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILSON GORRELL,

12

Case No. 1:12-cv-00554 AWI JLT

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER DISREGARDING REPLY TO
ANSWER

THOMAS C. SNEATH et al.,

(Doc. 21)
15

Defendants.

16
17

On August 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed his “reply” to Defendants’ answer. (Doc. 21) Plaintiff

18

is advised that a reply to an answer is not procedurally proper. If he wishes to file a motion, he

19

must outline the relief sought and support his entitlement to this relief with citation to legal

20

authorities.

21

The fact that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se does not relieve him of the obligation of filing

22

papers that are legally sound and which are supported by proper legal authorities and analysis.

23

The mere fact that he is proceeding pro se does not allow him to file a document that says, in

24

essence, “I disagree with the Defendants; Court, you figure it out.” The obligation to prosecute

25

this case remains with Plaintiff no matter that he is not represented by an attorney.

26

Notably, this is the second procedurally improper filing made by Plaintiff within less than

27

a month. Plaintiff is admonished that he may file only procedurally proper motions that are

28
1

1

supported by analysis and legal authorities. Therefore, the Court DISREGARDS Plaintiff’s

2

reply to the answer. (Doc. 21)
9j7khijed

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated:

August 22, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Sig nature-END:

9j7khijed

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