“that a reply to an 28 affirmative defense should not be ordered unless there is a clear and convincing factual showing of necessity or other extraordinary circumstances of a compelling nature”
How later courts described this case
- “that a reply to an 28 affirmative defense should not be ordered unless there is a clear and convincing factual showing of necessity or other extraordinary circumstances of a compelling nature”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 BOBBY E. BROWN, 1:21-cv-00087-ADA-GSA-PC
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS
13 vs.
(ECF No. 29.)
14 MARROQUIN, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Bobby E. Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights
18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19 On June 5, 2023, Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint. (ECF No. 23.) On June
20 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed objections to Defendants’ Answer. (ECF No. 26.) On August 1, 2023,
21 the Court issued an order disregarding Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 31.)
22 On July 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed more objections to Defendants’ Answer. (ECF No. 29.)
23 The Court shall also disregard Plaintiff’s later-filed objections. Parties are only permitted to file
24 a reply to an Answer “if the court orders one.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7).1
25
1 As Plaintiff was advised in the Court’s August 1, 2023 order, a reply to Defendants’
26
Answer is not permitted as a right. Leave to file a reply, or to compel a reply, requires the moving party
27 to make clear and convincing reasons or show extraordinary circumstances why a reply is necessary.
Moviecolor, Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 24 F.R.D. 325, 326 (S.D. N.Y. 1959) (“that a reply to an
28 affirmative defense should not be ordered unless there is a clear and convincing factual showing of
necessity or other extraordinary circumstances of a compelling nature”).
1 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
2 objections to Defendants’ Answer, filed on July 25, 2023, are disregarded.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5 Dated: August 2, 2023 /s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint does not include a counterclaim against
26
Plaintiff. (See ECF No. 23.) Nor has the Court ordered Plaintiff to reply to Defendants’ Answer.
27 Furthermore, Plaintiff has not stated clear and convincing reasons or what extraordinary circumstances
would compel this Court to permit him to file a reply. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections to the Answer shall
28 be disregarded.