(PC) Mills v. Jones et al

Filing 67

ORDER Striking 65 Plaintiff's Reply to Answer, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 06/05/2024. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS K. MILLS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:23-cv-01214-JLT-SAB (PC)
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REPLY
TO ANSWER

v.
(ECF No. 65)
ZACHERY JONES, et al.

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983.
On June 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendants’ filed which was filed on March 11,

19
20
21
22
23

2024.
Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:
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 third-party 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.

24
25
26
27

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

28
1

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s reply to Defendants’ answer, filed on June 4, 2024, is stricken

1
2

from the record.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 5, 2024
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