(PC) Bradford v. Usher

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-01128-SAB (PC) ) 9 Plaintiff, ) 10 v. ) ) O RER PD LE YR TS OT R DI EK FIN ENG D P AL NA TIN ST ’ I AF NF’ SS W S EE RC OND C. OGBUEHI, et al. ) [ECF No. 70] ) 12 Defendants. ) ) 13 ) 14 Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

16 On May 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second reply to Defendants’ answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 70.)

18 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, including “if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7) (emphasis added). No request to file a reply to the answer was sought or granted in this case, and therefore Plaintiff’s reply must be stricken.1 /// /// /// A plaintiff rarely needs to file any reply to an answer, “because the allegations in pleadings not requiring a response—e.g., the answer—are already automatically deemed denied or avoided under Rule 8(b)(6).” Fort Indep. Indian Cmty. v. California, No. CIV.S-08-432-LKK-KJM, 2008 WL 6579737, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2008).

4:.£ OCOYMEAD UETIOCTIL Pe POC Ue Ay OV 1 Accordingly, Plaintiff's reply to Defendants’ answer to the complaint, filed on May 19, 2020 || CECF No. 67) is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Al oe Dated: _ June 3, 2020 OF 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE