Bowell v. Montoya et al

Filing 31

ORDER Striking Impermissible 30 Surreply signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 02/14/2019. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES BOWELL,
Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13
14

1:17-cv-00605-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER STRIKING IMPERMISSIBLE
SURREPLY
(ECF No. 30.)

F. MONTOYA, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

James Bowell (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

22

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s

23

First Amended Complaint, filed on May 3, 2018, against defendants Montoya and Carter for

24

violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and against defendants Killmer and

25

Lopez for conspiracy to place Plaintiff at risk of serious harm and for failure to protect Plaintiff

26

under the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 16.)1

27
28

1
On October 25, 2018, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from
this case, for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 20.)

1

1

On January 10, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for an order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma

2

pauperis status (“motion”). (ECF No. 24.) On January 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition to

3

the motion. (ECF No. 28.) On February 4, 2019, Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s

4

opposition. (ECF No. 29.)
On February 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second opposition to Defendants’ motion. (ECF

5
6

No. 30.) The court construes Plaintiff’s second opposition as an impermissible surreply.

7

II.

SURREPLY

8

A surreply, or sur-reply, is an additional reply to a motion filed after the motion has

9

already been fully briefed. USLegal.com, http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sur-reply/ (last visited

10

December 31, 2013). The Local Rules provide for a motion, an opposition, and a reply. Neither

11

the Local Rules nor the Federal Rules provide the right to file a surreply. A district court may

12

allow a surreply to be filed, but only “where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists,

13

such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Hill v. England, 2005 WL

14

3031136, *1 (E.D.Cal. Nov. 8, 2005).

15

Plaintiff’s second opposition to Defendants’ motion is a surreply because it was filed on

16

February 13, 2019, after Defendant’s motion was fully briefed. The motion for an order revoking

17

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status was fully briefed and submitted on the record under Local

18

Rule 230(l) on February 4, 2019, when Defendant filed a reply to Plaintiff’s first opposition.

19

(ECF No. 29.) In this case, the court neither requested a surreply nor granted a request on the

20

behalf of Plaintiff to file a surreply. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to allow

21

him to file a surreply at this juncture. Therefore, Plaintiff’s surreply shall be stricken from the

22

record.2

23

///

24

///

25

///

26
27
A document which is ‘stricken’ will not be considered by the Court for any purpose.”
(Informational Order, ECF No. 3 at 2 ¶II.A.)
2

28

2

1
2
3

III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s surreply, filed on

February 13, 2019, is STRICKEN from the court’s record.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 14, 2019

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3