Jones v. Solomon et al

Filing 42

ORDER granting the moving Defendants' 40 Motion to Strike 34 Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to their Answer. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 2/11/2019. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(kby)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:18-cv-89-FDW
JORDAN ANDREW JONES,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent.
)
_________________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Motion, (Doc. No. 40), of Defendants Joseph
Buchanan, Stephen P. Carpenter, Marty Cooper, Tim Laughrun, Gilbert Lewis, Scotty Lowery,
Randy S. Mull, Jason M. Penland, Reene Reel to Strike Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to their
Answer, (Doc. No. 34).
District courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets with a view toward the
efficient and expedient resolution of cases. Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016). Striking
documents is within the Court’s inherent authority. See Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity
v. Patterson, 566 F.3d 138, 150 (4th Cir. 2009).
Defendants correctly argue that Plaintiff’s Response is improper because it exceeds the
scope of the pleadings permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it is not a: (1)
complaint; (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a
counterclaim; (4) an answer to a crossclaim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) an answer to a thirdparty complaint; or (7) a reply to an answer ordered by the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). The
Motion to Strike will therefore be granted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the moving Defendants’ Motion to Strike, (Doc.
1

No. 40), is GRANTED.

Signed: February 11, 2019

2