Rushdan v. Davey et al.
Filing
72
ORDER GRANTING Defendant Casas' 71 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Unauthorized Surreply; ORDER Striking 70 Surreply signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 05/20/2020. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
SALADIN RUSHDAN aka
ROBERT STANLEY WOODS,
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
15
D. DAVEY, et al.,
Defendants.
16
1:16-cv-00988-NONE-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CASAS’
MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S
UNAUTHORIZED SURREPLY
(ECF No. 71.)
ORDER STRIKING SURREPLY
ECF No. 70.)
17
18
19
20
21
I.
BACKGROUND
22
Saladan Rushdan aka Robert Stanley Woods (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding
23
pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with
24
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (2ACP) filed on March 9, 2018, against defendant
25
Correctional Officer Casas (“Defendant”) for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth
26
Amendment and related state claims. (ECF No. 28.)
27
On April 7, 2020, Defendant Casas filed a motion to set aside entry of default. (ECF No.
28
67.) On April 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 68.) On
1
1
April 28, 2020, Defendant Casas filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. (ECF No. 69.) On May
2
11, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s reply. (ECF No. 70.)
On May 13, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s
3
4
reply as an unauthorized surreply. (ECF No. 71.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.
5
II.
6
SURREPLY
A surreply, or sur-reply, is an additional reply to a motion filed after the motion has
7
already been fully briefed.
8
visited August 13, 2019). The Local Rules provide for a motion, an opposition, and a reply.
9
Neither the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules provide the right to file a surreply. A district court
10
may allow a surreply to be filed, but only “where a valid reason for such additional briefing
11
exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Hill v. England, 2005
12
WL 3031136, *1 (E.D.Cal. 2005).
13
III.
USLegal.com, https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sur-reply/ (last
DEFENDANT’S MOTION
14
Defendant Casas moves to strike Plaintiff’s surreply on the ground that it is unauthorized.
15
Defendant asserts that her reply to Plaintiff’s opposition was filed on April 28, 2020, and thus
16
Defendant’s motion was deemed submitted on that date. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s second
17
opposition did not present new evidence, which may warrant a surreply, but rather Plaintiff filed
18
the surreply in an attempt to rebut Defendant’s reply. Thus, because Plaintiff did not obtain leave
19
of court to file a surreply or establish good cause why he should be granted leave, Defendant
20
argues that the court should strike Plaintiff’s impermissible surreply from the record.
21
IV.
DISCUSSION
22
Plaintiff’s opposition filed on May 11, 2020, is Plaintiff’s second opposition to
23
Defendant’s motion to set aside entry of judgment. The second opposition is a surreply because
24
it was filed after Defendant’s motion was fully briefed. The motion was fully briefed and
25
submitted on the record under Local Rule 230(l) on April 28, 2020, when Defendant filed a reply
26
to Plaintiff’s first opposition. (ECF No. 69.)
27
In this case, the court neither requested a surreply, nor granted a request on Plaintiff’s
28
behalf to file a surreply. Plaintiff’s surreply does not raise new arguments, and Plaintiff has not
2
1
shown good cause for the court to allow him to file a surreply at this juncture. Therefore,
2
Plaintiff’s surreply shall be stricken from the record.1
3
V.
CONCLUSION
4
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1.
Defendant Casas’ motion to strike, filed on May 13, 2020, is GRANTED; and
6
2.
Plaintiff’s surreply, filed on May 11, 2020, is STRICKEN from the record.
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 20, 2020
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
A document which is “stricken” will not be considered by the court for any purpose.
3
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?