From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tucker v. Calvin

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 15, 2009
No. CIV S-09-0087 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2009)

Opinion

No. CIV S-09-0087 GGH P.

September 15, 2009


ORDER


Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendant's September 9, 2009, motion to strike. For the following reasons, this motion is granted.

On July 25, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On September 2, 2009, inmate Hakeem Akbar filed an opposition to the motion on plaintiff's behalf. This motion is not signed by plaintiff.

As noted by defendants in the motion to strike, Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 requires that every pleading must be signed by an attorney of record or by a party if the party is unrepresented. The opposition filed September 2, 2009, does not comply with Rule 11 because it is not signed by plaintiff. Because inmate Akbar is not a lawyer, he may not file pleadings on plaintiff's behalf.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' September 9, 2009, motion to strike (no. 14) is granted;

2. Plaintiff is granted twenty days from the date of this order to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss.


Summaries of

Tucker v. Calvin

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 15, 2009
No. CIV S-09-0087 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2009)
Case details for

Tucker v. Calvin

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL H. TUCKER, Plaintiff, v. D. CALVIN, Defendant

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

Date published: Sep 15, 2009

Citations

No. CIV S-09-0087 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2009)