Torres v. Diaz et al

Filing 34

ORDER striking 33 Reply to answer signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/23/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JUAN MATIAS TORRES,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
RALPH M. DIAZ, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

) Case No.: 1:14-cv-00492-SAB (PC)
)
)
) ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REPLY
TO ANSWER
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Juan Matias Torres is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding against Defendants Michael Harris, Rumulo Garza, and Y. Arnold on

20

Plaintiff’s claim of excessive force, against Defendant “John Doe” for unreasonable search, against

21

Defendants D. Fernandez for retaliation, and against Defendants B. Garza and M. Pallares for a due

22

process violation.

23

On February 4, 2015, Defendants R. Garza, Pallares, Arnold, Fernandez, Harris, and B. Garza,

24

filed an answer to the complaint. On February 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendants’ answer.

25

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

26

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

27
28

1

pleading shall be allowed, except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a
third-party answer.

1
2
3
4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). Because the Court did not order Plaintiff to reply to answer, Plaintiff’s reply is
HEREBY STRICKEN from the record.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 23, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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