Smith v. Hernandez et al

Filing 73

ORDER Striking Plaintiff's Reply to Answer 72 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/30/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
DELBERT J. SMITH,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01267-LJO-SAB (PC)

10

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REPLY
TO ANSWER

Plaintiff,
11
v.

[ECF No. 72]

12
C. HERNANDEZ, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16

Plaintiff Delbert J. Smith is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18

On July 19, 2018, Defendants Cramer, Hernandez, and Zuniga filed an answer to

19 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (ECF No. 68.) Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s
20 reply to the answer. (ECF No. 72.)
21

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

22

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 thirdparty 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.

23
24
25

26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). The Court did not order Plaintiff to reply to Defendants’ answer, nor did
27 Plaintiff seek any leave to file a reply to the answer. The Court declines to require any reply to
28 the answer.

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s reply to Defendants Cramer,

1

2 Hernandez, and Zunga’s answer, filed on July 28, 2018 (ECF No. 72), is stricken from the
3 record.
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated:

July 30, 2018
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