Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00489/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00489-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fox Salerno, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, Director of the Arizona

Department of Corrections, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-489-PHX-ROS (LOA)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow a Response to

Defendants’ Reply in Support of his Unenumerated Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss. (Doc.

25)

I. Background

Plaintiff filed a pro se Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint on March 8, 2012, pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc.1) After the mandatory screening process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a), the Court dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim with leave

to amend. (Doc. 5) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on May 15, 2012. (Doc. 7)

The Court again conducted the mandatory screening process on the First Amended

Complaint and ordered that Counts I and II and Defendant Harris were dismissed without

prejudice. (Doc. 9) The Court further ordered that Defendant Ryan must answer Count III

of the First Amended Complaint and must file a response to the Motion for Preliminary

Injunction, doc. 8. (Id.) On August 27, 2012, Defendant Ryan filed Defendant’s

Case 2:12-cv-00489-ROS Document 26 Filed 10/11/12 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

27

28

- 2 -

Unenumerated Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 17). Plaintiff filed a Response to

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on September 19, 2012, doc. 23, and Defendant filed a Reply

on October 4, 2012, doc. 24. 

II. Analysis

The Court on its on motion finds that Plaintiff’s Motion is an inappropriate filing

under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a)(7). The rule sets forth the only pleadings that

are allowed. Subsection (7) specifically states that a reply to an answer is only permitted if

the court orders one. (Id.) Plaintiff does not allege, nor does the docket reflect, that the

Court ordered a response to Defendants’ Reply. Therefore, under Rule 7(a)(7) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, it is an impermissible pleading and the Court will strike it from the

record. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow a Response to Defendant’s Reply

in Support of his Unenumerated Rule 12(B) Motion to Dismiss, doc. 25, is DENIED.

Dated this 11th day of October, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00489-ROS Document 26 Filed 10/11/12 Page 2 of 2