Bradford v. Ogbuehi

Filing 72

ORDER Striking Plaintiff's 70 Second Reply to Defendants' Answer signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 06/03/2020. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.
C. OGBUEHI, et al.

12

Defendants.

13
14
15

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01128-SAB (PC)
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
[ECF No. 70]

Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second reply to Defendants’ answer to the complaint. (ECF

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 70.)

18

The Court has not ordered any reply to Defendants’ answer in this case. Federal Rule of Civil

19

Procedure 7 lists all pleadings that are permitted, including “if the court orders one, a reply to an

20

answer.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7) (emphasis added). No request to file a reply to the answer was sought

21

or granted in this case, and therefore Plaintiff’s reply must be stricken.1

22

///

23

///

24

///

25
26

A plaintiff rarely needs to file any reply to an answer, “because the allegations in pleadings not requiring a
response—e.g., the answer—are already automatically deemed denied or avoided under Rule 8(b)(6).” Fort
Indep. Indian Cmty. v. California, No. CIV.S-08-432-LKK-KJM, 2008 WL 6579737, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 24,
2008).
1

27
28

1

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s reply to Defendants’ answer to the complaint, filed on May 19, 2020

1
2

(ECF No. 67) is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

6

June 3, 2020
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