Dingman
(PS) Gifford v. Dingman
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGER GIFFORD, No. 2:21-CV-1726-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CLINT DINGMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the 18 Court is Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 46, to strike Defendants’ answers. Defendants have filed an 19 opposition, ECF No. 47. Plaintiff has filed a reply, ECF No. 56. The matter has been submitted 20 without oral argument. 21 22 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 23 Plaintiff initiated this action on September 22, 2021. See ECF No. 1. Because 24 Plaintiff paid the filing fees, the Court did not screen Plaintiff’s pro se complaint for sufficiency. 25 On September 23, 2021, the Clerk of the Court issued summons for Defendants Clint Dingman, 26 Robert Puckett, Sr., Michele Hanson, Melissa Tulledo, Hornbrook Community Services District 27 (HCSD), and Bruce’s Towing/Radiator & Dismantling (Bruce’s Towing). See ECF No. 2. On 28 October…