Arzaga v. Santiago et al

Filing 118

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 03/22/22 DENYING 116 plaintiff's motion. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL ARZAGA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:18-cv-0313 KJM KJN P

v.

ORDER

E. SANTIAGO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On March 7, 2022, plaintiff filed

17
18

a motion seeking leave to file a sur-reply to defendants’ reply filed in connection with defendants’

19

motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The Local Rules do not authorize the routine filing of a sur-reply. Nevertheless, a district

20
21

court may allow a sur-reply “where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as

22

where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Hill v. England, 2005 WL 3031136, at

23

*1 (E.D. Cal. 2005); accord Norwood v. Byers, 2013 WL 3330643, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

24

(granting the motion to strike the sur-reply because “defendants did not raise new arguments in

25

their reply that necessitated additional argument from plaintiff, plaintiff did not seek leave to file

26

a sur-reply before actually filing it, and the arguments in the sur-reply do not alter the analysis

27

below”), adopted, 2013 WL 5156572 (E.D. Cal. 2013).

28

////

1

Here, defendants did not raise new arguments in the reply brief, and it appears plaintiff

2

merely seeks another opportunity to oppose defendants’ motion. Therefore, the undersigned

3

declines to grant plaintiff an opportunity to file a sur-reply.

4
5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 116) is denied.
Dated: March 22, 2022

6
7
8

/arza0313.sur

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2