(PC) Bryan D. Patterson v. Howard et al

Filing 28

ORDER STRIKING Plaintiff's 27 Reply to Defendant's Answer, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/16/2021.(Marrujo, C)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

BRYAN D. PATTERSON,

7

Plaintiff,

8
9

v.
MAURICE HOWARD, et al.,

10
Defendants.

11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00751-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REPLY
TO DEFENDANT’S ANSWER
(ECF No. 27)

12
Plaintiff Bryan D. Patterson is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

13
14

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

15

On January 8, 2021, Defendant Maurice Howard filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No.

16

22.) Pursuant to Rule 7(a), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a reply may be filed to answer, if

17

so ordered to by the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7). If an unauthorized reply is filed, it should be

18

stricken and deemed a nullity. Here, the Court did not order that a reply to Defendant’s answer be

19

filed. Thus, the unauthorized reply shall be stricken as a nullity. In addition, although Defendant

20

Howard initially failed to file a timely responsive pleadings, the Court found good cause to extend the

21

time to do so nunc pro tunc, and entry of default is not warranted. (ECF No. 22.) Accordingly, it is

22

HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s reply to Defendant’s answer is stricken from the record.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:

26

February 16, 2021
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
1