From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cramer v. Dickenson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 26, 2012
1:08-cv-00375-AWI-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2012)

Opinion

1:08-cv-00375-AWI-GSA-PC

01-26-2012

LATANYA CRAMER, Plaintiff, v. S. DICKENSON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER STRIKING RESPONSE FOR LACK OF SIGNATURE

(Doc. 45.)

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint initiating this action on March 17, 2008. (Doc. 1.)

On January 23, 2012, plaintiff submitted an unsigned response to the Court's order of October 5, 2011 which directed the Marshal to serve process on defendants. (Doc. 45.) All filings submitted to the court must bear the signature of the filing party. Local Rule 131; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).

Accordingly, plaintiff's response filed January 23, 2012 is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record for lack of signature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Cramer v. Dickenson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 26, 2012
1:08-cv-00375-AWI-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2012)
Case details for

Cramer v. Dickenson

Case Details

Full title:LATANYA CRAMER, Plaintiff, v. S. DICKENSON, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 26, 2012

Citations

1:08-cv-00375-AWI-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2012)