(PC) Hunt v. Diaz ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK HUNT, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-00504-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 13 v. ) REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER 14 D. DIAZ, et al., ) [ECF No. 57] ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 Plaintiff Mark Hunt is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second reply to Defendants’ answer, filed on October 21 19, 2020, but docketed on October 21, 2020. (ECF No. 57.) 22 As stated in the Court’s March 26, 2020 order, the Court has not ordered any reply to Defendants’ 23 answer in this case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 lists all pleadings that are permitted, including 24 “if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7) (emphasis added). No request to 25 file a reply to the answer was granted in this case, and therefore Plaintiff’s second reply to the answer 26 is STRICKEN from the record. See Fort Indep. Indian Cmty. v. California, No. CIV.S-08-432-LKK- 27 KJM, 2008 WL 6579737, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2008) (A plaintiff rarely needs to file any reply to 28 an answer, “because the allegations in pleadings not requiring a response—e.g., the answer—are already 1 || automatically deemed denied or avoided under Rule 8(b)(6).”). 2 3 || IT IS SO ORDERED. ot fe 4 Dated: _ October 22, 2020 OF 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28