# (PC) Brown v. Marroquin

> District Court, E.D. California · August 3, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10054585

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** August 3, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10054585

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10054585. Public record. Not legal advice.