From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Washington v. Diaz

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 12, 2023
2:20-cv-2261 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2023)

Opinion

2:20-cv-2261 KJM AC P

10-12-2023

CHRISTOPHER NATHANIEL WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. RALPH DIAZ, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a motion requesting an extension of time to respond to defendants' answers. ECF No. 99.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a reply to an answer absent an order from the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(1)(c). The court has not ordered a reply to the answer and plaintiff has not identified any grounds warranting a reply. The request for an extension of time to reply to the answer will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to reply to defendants' answers (ECF No. 99) is DENIED. DATED: October 12, 2023 .


Summaries of

Washington v. Diaz

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 12, 2023
2:20-cv-2261 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2023)
Case details for

Washington v. Diaz

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER NATHANIEL WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. RALPH DIAZ, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 12, 2023

Citations

2:20-cv-2261 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2023)