Neely v. Briggs et al

Filing 36

ORDER Striking Plaintiff's Response and Objections to Defendant's Answer to the Second Amended Complaint 34 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/29/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES ALBERT NEELY,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
D. RUFFIN,

15

Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00197-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE
AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S
ANSWER TO THE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
[ECF No. 34]

Plaintiff Charles Albert Neely is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the

19

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on February 17, 2015. Local Rule 302.

20
21
22

This is action is proceeding against Defendant D. Ruffin for excessive force in violation of the
Eighth Amendment.
On November 10, 2016, Defendant Ruffin filed an answer to Plaintiff’s second amended

23

complaint. (ECF No. 17.) On November 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s answer.

24

(ECF No. 23.)

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 response
is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 29, 2016
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