Matthews v. Holland

Filing 35

ORDER STRIKING Plaintiff's 34 Unsigned Motion for Court Reply, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/19/17. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 IVAN LEE MATTHEWS, 7 Plaintiff, 8 9 v. HOLLAND, et al., 10 Case No. 1:14-cv-01959-SKO (PC) ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S UNSIGNED MOTION FOR COURT REPLY (Doc. 34) Defendants. 11 Plaintiff, Ivan Lee Matthews, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 12 13 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On May 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed an 14 unsigned motion “for court reply.” (Doc. 34.) The Court cannot consider unsigned filings and 15 Defendants need not file a response to an unsigned pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Local Rule 16 131(b). It appears, however, from Plaintiff’s filing that he has received neither the Discovery and 17 Scheduling Order which issued in this case on April 26, 2017, nor the order denying his request 18 for entry of default which issued on May 3, 2017. Thus, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for court’s reply, filed on May 18, 19 20 2017, is STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD in this action. The Clerk’s Office is directed to 21 serve copies of the Discovery and Scheduling Order (Doc. 28) and the order denying his request 22 for entry of default (Doc. 32) on Plaintiff. 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 19, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 1 .

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?