Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00225-12/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 Wilbur Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

This action is proceeding against Defendants Ceballos, Borbolla, Holt, Rios, Torres, Ross, 

Alade, Abadia and Anderson. The action is currently in the discovery phase.

On May 20, 2014, James Mathison, the Deputy Attorney General who represents numerous 

Defendants in this action, filed a request to withdraw and/or strike Defendant Anderson’s answer, filed 

on May 13, 2014. According to Mr. Mathison, the answer was inadvertently filed on behalf of 

Defendant Anderson without an authorization for representation. Mathison Decl. ¶ 4. The day after 

inadvertently filing the answer, Mr. Mathison was informed that Defendant Anderson would be 

represented by outside counsel. Mathison Decl. ¶ 5. Outside counsel is prepared to file a responsive 

WILBUR ATCHERLEY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12cv00225 LJO DLB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

ANDERSON’S MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER

(Document 65)

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT 

ANDERSON’S ANSWER

(Document 59)

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 66 Filed 05/23/14 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 on behalf of Defendant Anderson and requested that Mr. Mathison file the instant request. 

Mathison Decl. ¶ 5.

Courts have the inherent power to control their docket and in the exercise of that power, they 

may properly strike documents. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404-05 (9th 

Cir. 2010). As it appears that Defendant Anderson was not represented by the Attorney General’s 

Office at the time the answer was filed, the Court finds that the document should be stricken.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Anderson’s motion to strike and STRIKES the 

answer filed on May 13, 2014 (Document 59).

Defendant Anderson SHALL file a responsive pleading within ten (10) days of the date of 

service of this order. The May 14, 2014, order extending the Discovery and Scheduling Order to 

Defendant Anderson SHALL remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00225-LJO-DLB Document 66 Filed 05/23/14 Page 2 of 2