Little v. Marciano et al

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/18/2011 ORDERING that pltf's 16 response to dfts' answer is DISREGARDED. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DEMETRIC LITTLE,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. CIV S-10-2490 JAM DAD P

vs.
P. A. C. MARCIANO, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action for relief

17

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 4, 2011, plaintiff filed a response to defendants’ answer

18

to plaintiff’s complaint. Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

19

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.

20
21
22
23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (emphasis added). The court has not ordered plaintiff to reply to defendants’

24

answer and declines to make such an order.

25

/////

26

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 4, 2011 response to

2

defendants’ answer to plaintiff’s complaint shall be disregarded.

3

DATED: May 18, 2011.

4
5
6
7

DAD:12
litt2490.77e

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2