Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06311/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06311-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHALMERS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 6311 REC LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ACCEPT

LATE FILING OF AMENDED RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (Doc. 35.) 

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION

EXHAUSTING ALL REMEDIES (Doc. 36.) 

 Richard Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 12, 2005, Defendants filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff, on

September 7, 2005, moved for the Court to accept the late filing of his Amended Response to

Defendant’s Answer. Plaintiff also filed a Notice of Motion and Motion exhausting all remedies. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that each case contain a Complaint and an

Answer. Fed.R.Civ.P. 7. The rules do not contemplate a Response to an Answer except in the

event the Answer makes a counterclaim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a). 

In this case, the Answer admits or denies allegations made in the Complaint and sets forth

Defendant’s affirmative defenses. The Answer, however, raises no counterclaims against

Plaintiff. Thus, a Response to the Answer is unnecessary and Plaintiff’s Motion will be

DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s Motion “Exhausting all remedies” will also be DISREGARDED. The purpose

Case 1:02-cv-06311-AWI-LJO Document 38 Filed 09/26/05 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

of this Motion is unclear however, it appears that Plaintiff may be wishing to allege that he has

exhausted his administrative remedies as Defendants have raised the affirmative defense of

exhaustion in their answer. Plaintiff need not address exhaustion at this stage in the proceedings. 

Should Defendants move to dismiss the case on the basis of Plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust,

Plaintiff may then file an Opposition to the Motion addressing the allegations made. However, at

this stage, Defendant’s must raise each affirmative defense in their answer or it is waived. As

Defendant’s have not moved for dismissal on exhaustion grounds, Plaintiff’s pleading is

unnecessary. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Accept the Late Filing of Amended Response to Answer is

DENIED;

2. The Motion exhausting all remedies is DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06311-AWI-LJO Document 38 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 of 2