Branch v. Grannis, et al.,
ORDER Striking Plaintiff's 166 Motion as Impermissible Filing/Surreply signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 05/16/2015. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION AS IMPERMISSIBLE
N. GRANNIS, et al.,
Louis Branch (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
commencing this action on July 7, 2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Third
Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on July 10, 2013, against defendants Umphenour,
Szalai, and Alvarez (“Defendants”) for deliberate indifference to a serious risk to Plaintiff’s
safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant Umphenour for retaliation
in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 94.)
On September 2, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 138.)
On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. (Doc. 142.) On January
29, 2015, with leave of court, Plaintiff filed an amended opposition. (Doc. 155.) On February
5, 2015, Defendants filed a reply to the amended opposition. (Doc. 157.) On April 22, 2015,
Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the court not to consider Defendants’ new argument in
Defendants’ reply. (Doc. 166.) The court construes Plaintiff’s motion of April 22, 2015, as a
A surreply, or sur-reply, is an additional reply to a motion filed after the motion has
already been fully briefed.
visited December 31, 2013). The Local Rules provide for a motion, an opposition, and a reply.
Neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules provide the right to file a surreply. A district
court may allow a surreply to be filed, but only “where a valid reason for such additional
briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Hill v.
England, 2005 WL 3031136, *1 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 8, 2005).
USLegal.com, http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sur-reply/ (last
Plaintiff’s motion filed on April 22, 2015, seeks to respond to Defendants’ reply to
Plaintiff’s amended opposition. The court neither requested a further response nor granted a
request by Plaintiff to file one. Moreover, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was
deemed admitted to the court on February 5, 2015, more than two months before Plaintiff filed
his motion. L. R. 230(l). Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to allow a further
response at this juncture. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be stricken from the record as an
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion filed on
April 22, 2015, is STRICKEN from the Court=s record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 16, 2015
/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?