Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06120/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06120-5/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

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

EDWARD D. ASHFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. JEFFREY NEUBARTH, M.D., 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-6120-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A

REPLY TO THE ANSWER

(Doc. 33)

Plaintiff Edward D. Ashford (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this tort action. Defendant Neubarth filed an answer to the complaint on August 25,

2005, and on September 8, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file a

traverse.

A traverse is a recognized pleading in an action in which a petitioner is seeking a writ of

habeas corpus. A traverse is not a recognized pleading in a civil tort action such as this. Therefore,

the court construes plaintiff’s motion to be one for an extension of time to file a reply to defendant’s

answer. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules provide for a reply to an

answer as a matter of right, although the court may order one in its discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a).

Because the court has not ordered a reply, plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply

to the answer is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06120-LJO -LJO Document 36 Filed 09/12/05 Page 1 of 1