(PC) Mills v. Jones

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 1, 2022
• Docket: 1:21-cv-01193
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS K. MILLS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01193-DAD-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER 13 v. (Doc. No. 60) 14 I. Z. JONES, J. RIVERA, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to file a Reply to Defendants’ Answer to 18 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 60). Defendants did not file a response in 19 opposition. See generally docket. The Court nonetheless denies the Motion. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) identifies the types of pleadings which are allowed. 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). Parties are only permitted to file a reply “if the court orders one.” Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 7(a)(7). A reply is not permitted as a right. Leave to file a reply, or to compel a reply, 23 requires the moving party to make clear and convincing reasons or show extraordinary 24 circumstances why a reply is necessary. Moviecolor, Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 24 F.R.D. 325, 25 326 (S.D. N.Y. 1959) (“that a reply to an affirmative defense should not be ordered unless there is 26 a clear and convincing factual showing of necessity or other extraordinary circumstances of a 27 compelling nature”). 28 Defendants’ answer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint does not include a counterclaim ee ne eee NE III IIE II III ISI IIS’? OTS

1 | against Plaintiff. (See Doc. No. 47). Nor has this Court ordered Plaintiff to reply to Defendants’ 2 | answer. Furthermore, Plaintiff's motion does not state clear and convincing reasons or what 3 | extraordinary circumstances would compel this Court to permit him to file a reply. Therefore, 4 | because Plaintiff has not provided clear and convincing reasons or extraordinary circumstances to 5 | warrant filing a reply, the Court will deny the Motion.! 6 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 7 Plaintiff's Motion to File Reply to Defendants’ Answer (Doc. No. 60) is DENIED. 8 9 Last Dated: _ March 31, 2022 (luo Th. fered ~ 10 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 —_ -)lcJddpt]IMT 'Tt appears that Plaintiff disputes the application of Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses. While a court may 26 | direct a plaintiff to file a reply when a defendant raises the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, see Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998), replies are normally only requested by the court when a 27 | plaintiff fails to aver “specific, nonconclusory factual allegations.” Jd. To the extent Defendants raise any affirmative defenses by way of pre-trial motion, Plaintiff will have an opportunity to file a response and/or 28 | evidence to the motion to refute Defendants’ entitlement to such affirmative defense.