Hardy v. Davis

Full title: KRISTIN HARDY, Plaintiff, v. C. DAVIS, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 8, 2015

2:13-cv-0726 JAM DAD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2015)

Opinion

KRISTIN HARDY, Plaintiff, v. C. DAVIS, et al., Defendants. No. 2:13-cv-0726 JAM DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. October 8, 2015

ORDER

DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On September 28, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for entry of defendants Davis, Morris, and Zahniser's default. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff is hereby informed that these defendants filed an answer on September 15, 2015. (See ECF No. 55.) Accordingly, plaintiff's motion will be denied.

On September 29, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of time in which to file a reply to defendants' answer. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiff is hereby informed that, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may not ordinarily file a reply to an answer, unless ordered to do by the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a)(7). In the present case, the court finds no basis for ordering plaintiff to file a reply to defendants' answer. Therefore, plaintiff's motion will be denied.

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for entry of default (ECF No. 57) is denied.

2. Plaintiff's motion for a thirty-day extension of time in which to file a reply to defendants' answer (ECF No. 58) is denied.