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