(PC) Hunt v. Diaz et al

Filing 59

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS SECOND 57 REPLY TO DEFENDANTS ANSWER, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/22/2020. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK HUNT,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

D. DIAZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00504-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
[ECF No. 57]

Plaintiff Mark Hunt is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second reply to Defendants’ answer, filed on October
19, 2020, but docketed on October 21, 2020. (ECF No. 57.)

22

As stated in the Court’s March 26, 2020 order, the Court has not ordered any reply to Defendants’

23

answer in this case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 lists all pleadings that are permitted, including

24

“if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7) (emphasis added). No request to

25

file a reply to the answer was granted in this case, and therefore Plaintiff’s second reply to the answer

26

is STRICKEN from the record. See Fort Indep. Indian Cmty. v. California, No. CIV.S-08-432-LKK-

27

KJM, 2008 WL 6579737, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2008) (A plaintiff rarely needs to file any reply to

28

an answer, “because the allegations in pleadings not requiring a response—e.g., the answer—are already
1

1

automatically deemed denied or avoided under Rule 8(b)(6).”).

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated:

5

October 22, 2020
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