(PC) Bradford v. Usher

4.417 VV VLLEO WIAD MVVULTICEI VO □□□ tlicy Paye +vrst 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-01128-SAB (PC) 6 ) Plaintiff, ) 7 ) ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO V. ) DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER C. OGBUEHI, et al, ) [ECF No. 67] Defendants. ) 10 ) 12 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.

14 On May 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendants’ answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 67 15 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.!

19 Accordingly, Plaintiff's reply to Defendants’ answer to the complaint, filed on May 19, 2020 || (ECF No. 67) is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record.

22 ||IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 FA.

Dated: _ May 20, 2020 24 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).