Tunstall v. Knowles, et al

Filing 101

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 10/1/2010 ORDERING that pltf's 9/23/10 response to dfts' answer is DISREGARDED. (Yin, K)

(PC) Tunstall v. Knowles, et al

Doc. 101

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. MIKE KNOWLES, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 23, 2010, plaintiff filed a document styled as a response to defendants' answer. 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 thirdparty answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (emphasis added). The court has not ordered plaintiff to reply to defendants' answer and declines to make such an order. ///// 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT TUNSTALL, Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-3176 WBS JFM (PC)

ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
12 t u n s 3 1 7 6 .7 7 e

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's September 23, 2010 response to defendants' answer is disregarded. DATED: October 1, 2010.

2