Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05490/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05490-0/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

ANTHONY SAMUEL CATO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-03-5490 AWI LJO P

ORDER DISREGARDING OBJECTION TO

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

(Doc. 74)

Plaintiff Anthony Samuel Cato (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 12, 2005, defendants

Andrews, Cheema, Dang, Do Canto, Fehlman, Fisher, Grandy, Hasadsri, Key, Loflin, Oseguera,

Pitts, Warren, and Weaver (“defendants”) filed an answer to plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint.

On April 28, 2005, plaintiff filed an objection to defendants’ answer.

Plaintiff’s objection to the answer is disregarded. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure nor the Local Rules provides for a reply to an answer, absent an order from the court

requiring one. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). In this case, the court did not order a reply to the answer. 

With respect to plaintiff’s objection that not all of the defendants against whom this action

is proceeding answered the amended complaint, only those defendants listed in the caption of the

answer have waived service and appeared in this action. The other defendants against whom this

action is proceeding are required to appear only after they have waived service or been personally

served. Plaintiff’s concern over the status of the unserved defendants is premature. At this time,

Case 1:03-cv-05490-AWI-GSA Document 92 Filed 05/05/05 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

service on the defendants not named in the caption of the answer is in process. Plaintiff will be

notified in due course by the court in the event that the Marshal is unable to locate and serve the

other defendants. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s objection to defendants’ answer is HEREBY DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05490-AWI-GSA Document 92 Filed 05/05/05 Page 2 of 2