Kilgore v. Grannis et al

Filing 72

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 9/28/2016 ORDERING plaintiff's 67 motion for an extension of time is DENIED; defendants' 71 motion to strike is GRANTED; and plaintiff's 70 response is STRICKEN from the record. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IVAN KILGORE,

12

No. 2:11-cv-1745 TLN DB P
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GRANNIS, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

18

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on May 16,

19

2016. On June 27, 2016, plaintiff filed an opposition. Defendants filed a reply on July 18, 2016.

20

On July 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file a response,

21

essentially a sur-reply, to defendants’ reply brief. (ECF No. 67.) Defendants opposed that

22

motion. (ECF No. 69.) On August 5, plaintiff filed that response. (ECF No. 70.) On August

23

18, defendants moved to strike plaintiff’s sur-reply. (ECF No. 71.) Any opposition to the motion

24

to strike was due by September 12, 2016. Local Rule 230(l). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition

25

to defendants’ motion.

26

In the court’s November 20, 2013 order, the parties were advised that all motions filed in

27

this case “shall be briefed pursuant to L.R. 230(l).” (ECF No. 21 at 3.) Local Rule 230(l)

28

provides for the filing of a motion, opposition, and reply. The rule states that motions in prisoner
1

1

cases “will be deemed submitted when the time to reply has expired.” The rule does not provide for

2

the filing of a sur-reply.

3

In his request for an extension of time, plaintiff states that he needs to file an additional brief

4

because in their reply defendants “contested” a “number of issues” that “were not raised in their

5

moving papers.” (ECF No. 67.) In their opposition to plaintiff’s motion, defendants state that they

6

“did not provide any new evidence in the reply to Plaintiff’s opposition, nor did Defendants raise new

7

issues or arguments.” (ECF No. 69 at 3.) Plaintiff does not identify any new issues or arguments

8

either in his motion for an extension of time or in the “response” he filed on August 5. Plaintiff has

9

failed to show why the court should permit his additional brief. Plaintiff is advised that if the court

10

requires additional briefing, it will order the parties to provide it.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

12

1. Plaintiff’s July 29, 2016 Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 67) is denied;

13

2. Defendants’ August 18, 2016 Motion to Strike (ECF No. 71) is granted; and

14

3. Plaintiff’s August 5, 2016 Response (ECF No. 70) is stricken from the record.

15

Dated: September 28, 2016

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/kilg1745.mts

25
26
27
28
2