Branch v. Grannis, et al.,

Filing 149

ORDER STRIKING SURREPLY 147 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/29/2014. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOUIS BRANCH, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 1:08-cv-01655-AWI-GSA-PC ORDER STRIKING SURREPLY (Doc. 147.) vs. N. GRANNIS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Louis Branch ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 20 commencing this action on July 7, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Third 21 Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on July 10, 2013, against defendants Umphenour, 22 Szalai, and Alvarez (“Defendants”) for deliberate indifference to a serious risk to Plaintiff’s 23 safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant Umphenour for retaliation 24 in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 94.) 25 On September 2, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 138.) 26 Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on September 29, 2014. (Doc. 142.) On October 6, 27 2014, Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. (Doc. 145.) On October 27, 2014, 28 Plaintiff filed an objection to Defendants’ reply. (Doc. 147.) 1 II. 2 SURREPLY A surreply, or sur-reply, is an additional reply to a motion filed after the motion has 3 already been fully briefed. 4 visited December 31, 2013). The Local Rules provide for a motion, an opposition, and a reply. 5 Neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules provide the right to file a surreply, and the Court 6 neither requested one nor granted a request on the behalf of Plaintiff to file one. Accordingly, 7 Plaintiff=s surreply, filed on February 18, 2014, shall be stricken from the record. A district 8 court may allow a surreply to be filed, but only “where a valid reason for such additional 9 briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Hill v. 10, (last England, 2005 WL 3031136, *1 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 8, 2005). 11 Plaintiff has filed a surreply in response to Defendants’ reply to his opposition to the 12 motion for summary judgment. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of September 2, 13 2014 was fully briefed and was submitted on the record under Local Rule 230(l) on October 9, 14 2014. L.R. 230(l). (Doc. 29.) The Court neither requested a surreply nor granted a request on 15 behalf of Plaintiff to file one. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to allow him to 16 file a surreply at this juncture. Therefore, Plaintiff’s surreply shall be stricken from the record. 17 III. 18 19 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s surreply, filed on October 27, 2014, is STRICKEN from the Court=s record. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 29, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?