From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lanier v. Beatie

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 20, 2021
1:19-cv-01261-NE-HBK (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021)

Opinion

1:19-cv-01261-NE-HBK

08-20-2021

JAMES M. LANIER, Plaintiff, v. BRIG BEATIE, Defendant.


ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S SECOND ANSWER (DOC. NO. 14) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH A CONSENT FORM (DOC. NO. 11-3)

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

On August 19, 2021, the Court held a scheduling conference in this case. (Doc. No. 19). Plaintiff James M. Lanier appeared pro se and Attorney James M. Makasian appeared on behalf of Defendant Brig Beatie. During the conference Defendant clarified that his October 24, 2020 answer (Doc. No. 13) was not an amended answer but rather a duplicate of the answer he filed on June 4, 2020 (Doc. No. 10). Accordingly, the Court deems the second answer as the operative answer, but not an amended answer. The Court also addressed with pro se Plaintiff that his response to Defendant's answer filed on November 3, 2020 (Doc. No. 14) was not a proper pleading. Specifically, a party may only file a reply to an answer if the court so orders. Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a)(7). No. such reply was ordered here. Thus, the Court will strike Plaintiff's unauthorized response to Defendant's answer.

Further, both parties orally expressed their desire to consent to the undersigned's jurisdiction over this matter. Neither party, however, has returned the required consent forms. The Court accordingly requests the Clerk of Court to send pro se Plaintiff a copy of the Consent/Decline of U.S. Magistrate Jurisdiction form. (Doc. No. 11-3).

Finally, both parties stated they were willing to engage in an early dispute resolution. The Court will set this matter for an early settlement conference by separate order. A full scheduling order will be issue if the case proceeds beyond the settlement conference.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Court deems Defendant's answer filed on October 24, 2020 (Doc. No. 13) the operative answer.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to strike Plaintiff s response to answer (Doc. No. 14).

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to resend Plaintiff a copy of the Consent/Decline of U.S. Magistrate Jurisdiction form. (Doc. No. 11-3).


Summaries of

Lanier v. Beatie

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 20, 2021
1:19-cv-01261-NE-HBK (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021)
Case details for

Lanier v. Beatie

Case Details

Full title:JAMES M. LANIER, Plaintiff, v. BRIG BEATIE, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 20, 2021

Citations

1:19-cv-01261-NE-HBK (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021)