Velasco

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. GRADFORD, No. 1:20-cv-00543-NONE-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’

13 v. ANSWER 14 F. VELASCO and T. WEBSTER, (ECF No. 21) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 30, 2020, Defendants F. Velasco and T. Webster filed an answer to Plaintiff 18 William J. Gradford’s complaint. On November 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “Request to File 19 Plaintiff’s Reply Brief to Answerring [sic] Defendants in this Case” (ECF No. 21), which the 20 Court will treat as a motion for leave to file a reply brief, and a corresponding reply brief (ECF 21 No. 22). 22 In his motion, Plaintiff discusses his attempts to serve a reply brief to Defendants’ answer 23 “before the deadline.” (ECF No. 21 at 1). However, there is no deadline to file a response to the 24 answer. Currently, the pending deadlines for Plaintiff are to exchange initial disclosures and file a 25 scheduling conference statement. (See ECF No. 20). There is…