From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Prasad

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 10, 2022
2:21-cv-1727 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-1727 KJN P

06-10-2022

CYMEYON HILL, Plaintiff, v. PRASAD, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 3, 2022, plaintiff filed a reply to defendants' answer.

Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Pleadings. Only these pleadings are allowed:

(1) a complaint;
(2) an answer to a complaint;
...
(7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (emphasis added). The court has not ordered plaintiff to reply to defendants' answer and declines to make such an order.

Because the court did not order plaintiff to file a reply, plaintiff's reply is stricken. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to strike plaintiff's reply (ECF No. 20).


Summaries of

Hill v. Prasad

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 10, 2022
2:21-cv-1727 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2022)
Case details for

Hill v. Prasad

Case Details

Full title:CYMEYON HILL, Plaintiff, v. PRASAD, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 10, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-1727 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 10, 2022)