(PC) Hunt v. Diaz

Opinion

MARK HUNT, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-00504-DAD-SAB (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO v. ) DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

D. DIAZ, et al., ) [ECF No. 35] ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) )

Plaintiff Mark Hunt is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s reply to Defendants’ answer, filed on March 24, 2020, but docketed on March 25, 2020. (ECF No. 35.) On March 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a reply to Defendants’ answer. (ECF No. 33.) On March 24, 2012, the undersigned signed an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply because it was not previously ordered or granted in this case; however, the order was not docketed until March 25, 2012-after Plaintiff’s reply was docketed in this case. (ECF No. 34.) /// As stated in the Court’s March 25, 2012 order, the Court has not ordered any reply to Defendants’ answer in this case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 lists all pleadings that are permitted, includir “ifthe court orders one, areply to an answer.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7) (emphasis added). No request file a reply to the answer was granted in this case, and therefore Plaintiff's reply to the answer STRICKEN from the record. See Fort Indep. Indian Cmty. v. California, No. CIV.S-08-432-LKK-KJN 2008 WL 6579737, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2008) (A plaintiff rarely needs to file any reply to < answer, “because the allegations in pleadings not requiring a response—e.g., the answer—are alreac automatically deemed denied or avoided under Rule 8(b)(6).”). IT IS SO ORDERED. Al oe ! bated: _March 26, 2020 OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE