Hardy v. Davis et al

Filing 59

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/8/15 ORDERING that Plaintiffs motion for entry of default (ECF No. 57 ) is DENIED. Plaintiffs motion for a 30 day extension of time in which to file a reply to defendants answer (ECF No. 58 ) is DENIED.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KRISTIN HARDY,

12

No. 2:13-cv-0726 JAM DAD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

C. DAVIS, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 28, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for entry of defendants Davis, Morris, and

19
20

Zahniser’s default. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff is hereby informed that these defendants filed an

21

answer on September 15, 2015. (See ECF No. 55.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion will be

22

denied.
On September 29, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of time in which

23
24

to file a reply to defendants’ answer. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiff is hereby informed that, under the

25

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may not ordinarily file a reply to an answer, unless

26

ordered to do by the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7). In the present case, the court finds no basis

27

for ordering plaintiff to file a reply to defendants’ answer. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion will be

28

denied.
1

1

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default (ECF No. 57) is denied.

3

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty-day extension of time in which to file a reply to

4

defendants’ answer (ECF No. 58) is denied.

5

Dated: October 8, 2015

6
7
8

DAD:10/mp
hard0726.reply.deny

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2