Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01601/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01601-2/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LACEDRIC JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO (PC)

ORDER STRIKING UNSIGNED REPLY TO 

ANSWER

(Doc. 22)

Plaintiff Lacedric Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 14, 2014. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint against (1) Defendants Santos and Salas for violation 

of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause; (2) Defendant Santos for violation of the Fourth 

Amendment; (3) Defendants Santos, Leon, Espinosa, Benavides, Bejinez, Erickson, Hill, 

Kennedy, Lopez, Luna, Ramirez, Salas, Trinidad, Deshazo, and Newton for violation of the Eighth 

Amendment arising out of the use of excessive physical force; and (4) Defendant Bejinez, 

Trinidad, Deshazo, George, Hansen, Liebold, Sharp, and Hoggard for violation of the Eighth 

Amendment arising out of the denial of adequate medical care. 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 23 Filed 10/26/15 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

On October 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an unsigned reply to Defendants’ answer. Unsigned 

filings cannot be considered by the Court and Plaintiff’s reply is HEREBY ORDERED 

STRICKEN from the record.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Local Rule 131. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff should not refile his reply. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules provide for a 

reply to an answer, absent an order from the Court requiring one, and in this case, the Court did not order one. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 7(a)(7). 

Case 1:14-cv-01601-LJO-SKO Document 23 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 2