(PC) Bradford v. Usher ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 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 11 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 15 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 17 No. 70.) 18 The Court has not ordered any reply to Defendants’ answer in this case. Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 7 lists all pleadings that are permitted, including “if the court orders one, a reply to an 20 answer.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7) (emphasis added). No request to file a reply to the answer was sought 21 or granted in this case, and therefore Plaintiff’s reply must be stricken.1 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 1 A plaintiff rarely needs to file any reply to an answer, “because the allegations in pleadings not requiring a 27 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, 28 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 2 || CECF No. 67) is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Al oe 5 Dated: _ June 3, 2020 OF 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28