Carr v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al

Filing 137

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/25/11 ORDERING that Plaintiffs 116 motion is GRANTED; Plaintiffs 124 motion to amend the declaration is GRANTED; Plaintiffs 127 motion for extension of time to file a surreply is DENIED; and Plaintiffs 131 and 135 motions for extension of time to file a reply to defendants June 22, 2011 opposition are DENIED. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ARTHUR CARR,

11

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

12
13

ORDER

vs.
H. HER, et al.,

14
15

/

16
17

No. 2:09-cv-0826 GEB KJN P

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Multiple motions are
pending which this court will address seriatim.

18

On May 27, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to file a document in excess of 25

19

pages, accompanied by his 43 page opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment.

20

Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion is granted.

21

On June 6, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the declaration submitted in

22

support of plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants have

23

not filed an opposition or objection. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s motion is granted. The

24

court will consider the June 6, 2011 revisions in ruling on the pending motion for summary

25

judgment.

26

////
1

1

On June 20, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a surreply

2

to defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff

3

alleges defendants raised new arguments in the reply. On June 22, 2011, defendants filed an

4

opposition disputing plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 230(l) makes no

5

provision for the filing of a surreply. Thus, plaintiff’s June 20, 2011 motion is denied.

6

On July 1, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply to

7

defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file a surreply. On July 21,

8

2011, plaintiff filed a second motion for extension of time. However, because the filing of a

9

surreply is not permitted, plaintiff’s motions are unnecessary and are denied.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. Plaintiff’s May 27, 2011 motion (dkt. no. 116) is granted;

12

2. Plaintiff’s June 6, 2011 motion to amend the declaration (dkt. no. 124) is

13

granted;

14
15

3. Plaintiff’s June 20, 2011 motion for extension of time to file a surreply (dkt.
no. 127) is denied; and

16

4. Plaintiff’s July 1, 2011 and July 21, 2011 motions for extension of time to file

17

a reply to defendants’ June 22, 2011 opposition are denied. (Dkt. Nos. 131 & 135)

18

DATED: July 25, 2011

19
20

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22

carr0826.den

23
24
25
26
2