Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00197/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00197-5/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

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

Plaintiff Charles Albert Neely is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the 

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on February 17, 2015. Local Rule 302.

This is action is proceeding against Defendant D. Ruffin for excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. 

On November 10, 2016, Defendant Ruffin filed an answer to Plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint. (ECF No. 17.) On November 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s answer. 

(ECF No. 23.) 

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

There shall be a complaint and an answer; a reply to a counterclaim denominated as 

such; an answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a cross-claim; a third-party 

complaint, if a person who was not an original party is summoned under the provisions 

of Rule 14; and a third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is served. No other 

CHARLES ALBERT NEELY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. RUFFIN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00197-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE 

AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S 

ANSWER TO THE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

[ECF No. 34]

Case 1:15-cv-00197-LJO-SAB Document 36 Filed 11/29/16 Page 1 of 2
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

pleading shall be allowed, except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a 

third-party answer.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). Because the Court did not order Plaintiff to reply to answer, Plaintiff’s response 

is HEREBY STRICKEN from the record. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00197-LJO-SAB Document 36 Filed 11/29/16 Page 2 of 2