Carey v. Alphonso et al

Filing 18

ORDER STRIKING 15 Reply to Answer, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/4/14. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NATHAN CHARLES CAREY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
A. ALPHONSO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Plaintiff Nathan Charles Carey is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding against Defendant Doctor Alphonso for deliberate indifference to a

19
20

) Case No.: 1:13-cv-00669-SAB (PC)
)
) ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REPLY
) TO ANSWER
) [ECF No. 15]
)
)
)
)
)

serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

21

On May 21, 2014, Defendant Alphonso filed an answer to the complaint.

22

On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendant’s answer.

23

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

24

There shall be a complaint and an answer; a reply to a counterclaim denominated as
such; an answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a cross-claim; a third-party
complaint, if a person who was not an original party is summoned under the provisions
of Rule 14; and a third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is served. No other
pleading shall be allowed, except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a
third-party answer.

25
26
27
28

///
1

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). Because the Court did not order Plaintiff to reply to answer, Plaintiff’s response

2

is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

6

August 4, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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