Johnson v. Gonzalez et al

Filing 75

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 73 Motion to File a Late Response to Defendants' Undisputed Facts and STRIKING Plaintiff's 74 Reponse to Disputed Facts, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 7/26/2011. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:09-cv–01264-AWI-SMS PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
FILE A LATE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
UNDISPUTED FACTS AND STRIKING
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DISPUTED
FACTS

v.
L. GONZALEZ, et al.,

13

Defendants.

(ECF Nos. 73, 74)
/

14
15

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on the

17

complaint filed July 21, 2009, against Defendants L. Gonzales1 and A. Murrieta for excessive force

18

in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

19

recommendations issued recommending granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

20

notifying the parties that objections were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 70.) On July 8,

21

2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a late response to Defendant’s undisputed facts in their motion

22

for summary judgment and a response to Defendants disputed facts. Plaintiff had the opportunity to

23

oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and did file an opposition. The Local Rules

24

provide for a motion, an opposition, and a reply. Neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules

25

provide the right to file a surreply, and the Court neither requested one nor granted a request on the

26

behalf of Plaintiff to file one. Defendant’s motion was deemed submitted upon the filing of the

(ECF No. 1.)

On June 6, 2011, findings and

27
28

1

The Court will refer to Defendant as Gonzales, the spelling used in Defendants’ motion.

1

1

reply. Local Rule 230(m). The arguments of the parties have been considered and a findings and

2

recommendation issued. Plaintiff is not now entitled to supplement his opposition to Defendants’

3

motion for summary judgment.

4

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to file a late response to Defendants undisputed facts is

5

HEREBY DENIED and the response to Defendants’ undisputed facts is HEREBY STRICKEN from

6

the record.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:
icido3

July 26, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2