(PC) Bryan D. Patterson v. Howard et al
ORDER STRIKING Plaintiff's 27 Reply to Defendant's Answer, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/16/2021.(Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRYAN D. PATTERSON,
MAURICE HOWARD, et al.,
Case No.: 1:20-cv-00751-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REPLY
TO DEFENDANT’S ANSWER
(ECF No. 27)
Plaintiff Bryan D. Patterson is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On January 8, 2021, Defendant Maurice Howard filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No.
22.) Pursuant to Rule 7(a), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a reply may be filed to answer, if
so ordered to by the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7). If an unauthorized reply is filed, it should be
stricken and deemed a nullity. Here, the Court did not order that a reply to Defendant’s answer be
filed. Thus, the unauthorized reply shall be stricken as a nullity. In addition, although Defendant
Howard initially failed to file a timely responsive pleadings, the Court found good cause to extend the
time to do so nunc pro tunc, and entry of default is not warranted. (ECF No. 22.) Accordingly, it is
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s reply to Defendant’s answer is stricken from the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 16, 2021
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?