Jackson v. Dye et al

Filing 23

ORDER STRIKING Plaintiff's 22 Response to Defendants' Answer signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/31/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CURTIS RENEE JACKSON,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
DYE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00222-SAB (PC)
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
[ECF No. 22]

Plaintiff Curtis Renee Jackson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants Dye and

20

Mills for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Defendants filed an answer to the amended

21

complaint on February 12, 2015. On March 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’

22

answer. (ECF No. 22.)

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

March 31, 2015
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