Alfonso Hall v. Smith et al

Filing 43

ORDER STRIKING Reply to Defendant D. Smith's Answer 42 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/1/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALFONSO HALL,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00860-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER STRIKING REPLY TO
DEFENDANT D. SMITH’S ANSWER
[ECF No. 42]

D. SMITH, et al.,

15
Defendants.
16
17
18

Plaintiff Alfonso Hall is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On February 5, 2018, Defendant D. Smith filed an answer to Plaintiff’s second amended

20

complaint. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s response to the answer, filed on February 28,

21

2018. (ECF No. 42.)

22

In relevant part, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that there shall be a

23

complaint, an answer to a complaint, and, if the court orders one, a reply to an answer. Fed. R.

24

Civ. P. 7(a). In this case, Plaintiff titles his response as a response to Defendant Smith’s

25

“counterclaims,” but Defendant Smith has filed no counterclaims, and in reviewing Plaintiff’s

26

filing, it seeks to generally deny the answer and the defenses raised in the answer, and is therefore

27

a reply to the answer. The Court has not ordered a reply to Defendant D. Smith’s answer, and

28

declines to make such an order.

1
2

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s answer, filed on February 28, 2018,
(ECF No. 42), is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

March 1, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2