(PC) Hunt v. Diaz

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARK HUNT, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-00504-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO 13 v. ) DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER D. DIAZ, et al., ) [ECF No. 35] ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Mark Hunt is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20 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.)

22 On March 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a reply to Defendants’ answer. (ECF No. 33.)

24 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.)

27 /// 28 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).”).

9 || IT IS SO ORDERED.

Al oe |! bated: _March 26, 2020 OF 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE