Belyew v. Lorman et al
Filing
71
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/3/2020 DENYING defendant's 66 motion to strike; and the court sua sponte strikes documents filed by plaintiff on 6/20/2019 (ECF Nos. 67 , 68 ). (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LISA BELYEW,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-0723 MCE CKD P
v.
ORDER
LARRY LORMAN, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil
17
18
rights. Defendant Lorman’s motion for summary judgment is pending before the court. The
19
motion was fully briefed as of May 22, 2019. Plaintiff filed supplements to her opposition on
20
May 31, 2019 (ECF No. 64), June 6, 2019 (ECF No. 65), June 20, 2019 (ECF No. 67) and June
21
21, 2019 (ECF No. 68) without seeking leave to do so. Defendant moves to strike the May 31
22
and June 6 submissions.
With respect to the May 31 document, it appears plaintiff may have been confused as to
23
24
whether the granting of an extension of time by the court on May 17, 2019 rendered this
25
document properly filed. Also, this document is fairly straight-forward, not unnecessarily long,
26
and not materially repetitive of material already filed. Considering the above along with the
27
leeway the court must grant pro se litigants, and considering it does not appear defendant will be
28
/////
1
1
prejudiced by the court’s consideration of the material, the motion to strike will be denied with
2
respect to the May 31 document.
3
The June 6 document is merely an attempt by plaintiff to respond to evidentiary objections
4
made by defendant in his reply brief. Again, considering the leeway the court must give to pro se
5
litigants, especially with respect to technical requirements concerning evidence, the motion to
6
strike will be denied as to this document as well.
7
However, the documents filed by plaintiff on June 20, 2019 and June 21, 2019 are clearly
8
late without any justification and are repetitive of matters already addressed by plaintiff. These
9
documents will not be considered by the court when ruling upon defendant’s motion for summary
10
judgment.
11
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
12
1. Defendant’s motion to strike (ECF No. 66) is denied; and
13
2. The court sua sponte strikes documents filed by plaintiff on June 20, 2019 (ECF No.
14
67) and June 21, 2019 (ECF No. 68).
15
Dated: February 3, 2020
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
1
bely0723.msj
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?