(PC) Bradford v. Usher

Opinion

4.417 VV VLLEO WIAD MVVULTICEI VO □□□ tlicy Paye +vrst

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-01128-SAB (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO V. ) DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER C. OGBUEHI, et al, ) [ECF No. 67] Defendants. ) )

Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperi in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendants’ answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 67 The Court has not ordered any reply to Defendants’ answer in this case. Federal Rule of Civ Procedure 7 lists all pleadings that are permitted, including “if the court orders one, a reply to ¢ answer.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7) (emphasis added). No request to file a reply to the answer was soug or granted in this case, and therefore Plaintiff's reply must be stricken.! Accordingly, Plaintiff's reply to Defendants’ answer to the complaint, filed on May 19, 2020 (ECF No. 67) is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record. IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. Dated: _ May 20, 2020 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | ' A plaintiff rarely needs to file any reply to an answer, “because the allegations in pleadings not requiring response—e.g., the answer—are already automatically deemed denied or avoided under Rule 8(b)(6).” F« Indep. Indian Cmty. v. California, No. CIV.S-08-432-LKK-KJM, 2008 WL 6579737, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 2 } 2008).