Brown v. Harris et al
Filing
34
ORDER STRIKING 31 Surreply signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/19/2014. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CORNELL BROWN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
1:12-cv-01472-GSA-PC
ORDER STRIKING SURREPLY
(Doc. 31.)
vs.
R. HARRIS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
I.
BACKGROUND
Cornell Brown (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
19
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.
20
Plaintiff’s initial Complaint filed on September 10, 2012, against defendant Harris for
21
excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and defendant Nelson for failure to
22
protect Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.)
This case now proceeds on
23
On December 6, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action for failure to
24
exhaust remedies. (Doc. 22.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on January 27, 2014.
25
(Doc. 27.) On January 29, 2014, Defendants filed a notice of errata, making a correction to
26
their motion to dismiss. (Doc. 28.) On February 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a response to
27
Defendants’ notice of errata. (Doc. 30.) On February 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a surreply.
28
(Doc. 32.)
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
USLegal.com, http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sur-reply/ (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 to dismiss. Defendants’ motion to dismiss of December 6, 2013 was fully briefed and
13
was submitted on the record under Local Rule 230(l) on February 3, 2014, when Defendants
14
filed their reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. (Doc. 29.) The Court neither requested a surreply nor
15
granted a request on the behalf of Plaintiff to file one. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for
16
the court to allow him to file a surreply at this juncture. Therefore, Plaintiff’s surreply shall be
17
stricken from the record.
18
III.
19
20
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s surreply, filed on
February 18, 2014, is STRICKEN from the Court=s record.
21
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
25
26
27
28
February 19, 2014
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
6i0kij8d
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?