Powell v. Madden, et al.

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING 29 Petition for Leave, Permitting Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Answer to Complaint signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 12/24/2013. (Jessen, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TONY EDWARD POWELL,
Case No. 1:13-cv-00057-RRB
Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER REGARDING
MOTION AT DOCKET 29

MADDEN, et al.,
Defendants.

At Docket 29 Plaintiff Tony Edward Powell, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed
a document entitled “Petition for Leave, Permitting Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s
Answer to Complaint.” It is unclear from Powell’s document as presented precisely what
relief Powell is seeking and on what procedural basis that relief is sought. In federal courts
there is no reply to an answer unless ordered by the court,1 which this Court has not
ordered. To the extent that Powell seeks leave to controvert an affirmative defense, this
Court deems all affirmative defenses as being controverted, thereby rendering Powell’s

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7).

ORDER [Re: Motion at Docket 29]
Powell v. Madden, 1:13-cv-00057-RRB – 1

motion unnecessary.2 As presently constituted, Powell’s motion does not satisfy the
requirements for summary disposition.3
This Court will consider the matters that may be properly submitted to it for
determination pre-trial when presented as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.4
Accordingly, the “Petition for Leave, Permitting Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Answer
to Complaint” at Docket 29 is DENIED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of December, 2013.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Cf. Crawford v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 578 (1998) (noting that in order to
prevent officials from being subjected to unnecessary and burdensome pretrial
proceedings, a trial court has discretion to either order a reply to the defendant’s answer
under Rule 7(a), or grant a motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e)).
3

See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (judgment on the pleadings), 56 (summary

judgment).
4

Id.

ORDER [Re: Motion at Docket 29]
Powell v. Madden, 1:13-cv-00057-RRB – 2