Baker v. Gipson et al

Filing 36

ORDER STRIKING 30 Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Defendant's Answer signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/11/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

ROBERT G. BAKER,
Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

15

CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,

16

Case No. 1: 13-cv-01931-MJS (PC)
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER

Defendants.

(ECF No. 30)

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

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 7.) The action
proceeds against Defendant Kitt on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical indifference
claim. (ECF No. 11.) On February 19, 2015, Defendant filed an answer. (ECF No. 25.)
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion in opposition to Defendant’s answer. (ECF
No. 30.) Defendant filed an opposition (ECF No. 34.), and Plaintiff has replied (ECF No.
35.). The matter is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
Plaintiff’s motion is essentially a reply to Defendant’s answer. Plaintiff indicates
whether he agrees or disagrees with each paragraph of Defendant’s answer and
requests that the Court grant the relief he seeks in his First Amended Complaint

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

(“FAC”). Defendant responds that Plaintiff has not stated the particular legal grounds
for his motion or specified what relief he is entitled to aside from the relief he seeks in
his FAC in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1).
A party may file a reply to an answer if the Court orders one. Fed. R. Civ. P.
7(a)(7). The Court did not order Plaintiff to file a reply and none is necessary here. If
Plaintiff is seeking to strike any portion of Defendant’s answer or affirmative defenses,
he should state with particularity what portion or defenses he is seeking to have stricken
and the basis for doing so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B); See also Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(f) (“an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter” may be stricken from a pleading).
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion in
opposition to Defendant’s answer is STRICKEN as unnecessary and improper.

13
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16

Dated:

May 11, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2