(PC) Brown v. Marroquin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 BOBBY E. BROWN, 1:21-cv-00087-ADA-GSA-PC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ 13 vs. ANSWER

14 MARROQUIN, et al., (ECF No. 34.) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Bobby E. Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with the original Complaint filed 19 on January 21, 2021, against defendants Darius Campbell, D. Chavez, M. Espinosa, Otto 20 Marroquin, and M. Pompa (collectively “Defendants”), on Plaintiff’s claims for excessive force. 21 (ECF No. 1.) On June 5, 2023, Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint. (ECF No. 23.) On 22 June 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed objections to Defendants’ Answer. (ECF No. 26.) 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) identifies the types of pleadings which are allowed. 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). Parties are only permitted to file a reply to an Answer “if the court orders 25 one.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7). A reply is not permitted as a right. 26 Leave to file a reply, or to compel a reply, requires the moving party to make clear and 27 convincing reasons or show extraordinary circumstances why a reply is necessary. Moviecolor, 28 Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 24 F.R.D. 325, 326 (S.D. N.Y. 1959) (“that a reply to an affirmative 1 defense should not be ordered unless there is a clear and convincing factual showing of necessity 2 or other extraordinary circumstances of a compelling nature”). 3 Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint does not include a counterclaim against 4 Plaintiff. (See ECF No. 23.) Nor has the Court ordered Plaintiff to reply to Defendants’ Answer. 5 Furthermore, Plaintiff has not stated clear and convincing reasons or what extraordinary 6 circumstances would compel this Court to permit him to file a reply. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 7 objections to the Answer shall be disregarded. 8 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s 9 objections to Defendants’ Answer, filed on June 26, 2023, are disregarded. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 Dated: July 31, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28