IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 4, 2009
MELVIN DE VAN DANIEL, PLAINTIFF,
B. PADILLA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
On February 24, 2009, plaintiff filed a request that the court subpoena state parole personnel, San Joaquin Mental Health personnel, Central Valley Low Income Housing, and Stockton Police Lieutenants, alleging that these people can "explain [his] action and those of the named defendants." Id. Plaintiff is advised that his request is premature. The status conference is a pretrial scheduling conference only; no evidence will be taken, no witnesses will testify. Plaintiff may wish to subpoena certain witnesses to testify at trial, but a trial date has not yet been set in this matter.
On February 24, 2009, plaintiff filed a document entitled "Response to Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint." Id. Plaintiff is advised that the Federal Rules contemplate the filing of a complaint and an answer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7. Plaintiff is not permitted to file a reply to the answer absent a court order requiring one. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7). This court has not ordered one. Thus, plaintiff's response will be placed in the court file and disregarded.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's February 24, 2009 request (#33) is denied without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff's February 26, 2009 Response (#34) is retained in the court file but disregarded.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.