Hasan v. Johnson

Filing 83

ORDER STRIKING Plaintiff's Surreplys (Docs. 80 , 81 , 82 ) signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/19/2012. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAWWAAD HASAN,

12

1:08-cv-00381-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

13
14

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
SURREPLIES

v.
C/O JOHNSON,

15

(Docs. 81, 82, 83.)
Defendant.
/

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Jawwaad Hasan (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with

19

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff commenced this action on March 27,

20

2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the original Complaint filed on March 17, 2008,

21

against defendant Correctional Officer Johnson (“Defendant”), on Plaintiff’s claim for excessive

22

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 19.)

23

On May 5, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (Docs. 52, 54.) On June

24

20, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 57.) On July 5, 2012, Defendant a reply

25

to the opposition. (Doc. 60, 61.)

26

///

27
1

28

On August 20, 2010, the Court dismissed the Doe Defendants and Plaintiff’s supervisory liability claims
from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 19.) On February 13, 2012, the Court dismissed
Plaintiff’s state law claims via Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 43.)

1

1

On August 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a supplemental opposition to the motion for summary

2

judgment. (Docs. 70, 71, 72.) On October 1, 2012, Defendant filed a response to the supplemental

3

opposition. (Docs. 77, 78.)

4

On October 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed three documents: (1) Sur-Reply Objections to

5

Defendant’s Medical Evidence, (2) Declaration of Plaintiff in Support of Objection to Medical

6

Evidence, and (3) Sur-Reply to Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Objections to

7

Defendant’s Evidence. (Docs. 80, 81, 82.)

8

II.

SURREPLY

9

The Local Rules provide for a motion, an opposition, and a reply. Neither the Local Rules

10

nor the Federal Rules provide the right to file a surreply, and the Court neither requested one nor

11

granted a request on the behalf of Plaintiff to file one. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s surreplies, filed on

12

October 11, 2012, shall be stricken from the record.

13

III.

CONCLUSION

14

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

16
17

record;
2.

18
19

Plaintiff’s surreplies, filed on October 11, 2012, are STRICKEN from the Court’s

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed on May 5, 2012, is deemed
submitted under Local Rule 230(l); and

3.

20

No further submissions by either party in support of or opposition to Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment shall be permitted.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

October 19, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2