Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01008/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01008-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD THORPE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1008 FCD EFB P

vs.

SNOW, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Defendants answered the first amended complaint on October 31, 2006. The court

issued a discovery and scheduling order on November 15, 2006. Plaintiff requests an extension

of time to take “whatever action is to be taken by the plaintiff after the defendants’ have

answered the first amended complaint.” Motion at 1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s motion and construes it as a request for clarification.

Plaintiff asserts that the court explained how to oppose motions but plaintiff is unsure

how to proceed because defendants did not attach a motion to their answer. A defendant, in

response to a complaint and before filing an answer, may file a motion asking that the complaint

be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a), (b), (e), (f). Defendants filed no such motion, but instead

////

Case 2:05-cv-01008-FCD-EFB Document 33 Filed 12/06/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

filed an answer. Although defendant may, at some point file a dispositive motion seeking to end

this case, no other pleading is required at this point. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). Therefore,

plaintiff is under no obligation to file any document in response to the answer. If defendant later

files a motion, plaintiff is required to respond as previously instructed. Plaintiff is bound by the

Local Rules, which were sent to him on July 28, 2006, and by the discovery and scheduling

order issued on November 15, 2006.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ordered that plaintiff’s November 16, 2006, motion,

construed as one for clarification. That clarification has been provided. Plaintiff is under no

obligation to file a document in response to defendant’s the answer. He is, however, bound by

the Local Rules, and by the discovery order and previous scheduling order entered in this case. 

Dated: December 5, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01008-FCD-EFB Document 33 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 2