(PC)Calhoun v. Dela Cruz et al

Filing 64

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 01/18/2023 GRANTING-IN-PART and DENYING-IN-PART the 62 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff's request for an extension to file a sur-reply to 59 Reply is DENIED and Plaintiff is GRANTED 90 days to file a reply to 61 Opposition to Motion to Amend. (Spichka, K.)

Case 2:20-cv-02209-DAD-DB Document 64 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMONT CALHOUN,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:20-cv-2209 DAD DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

DELA CRUZ, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time of ninety days to file a reply to defendants’

19

December 21, 2022, opposition to plaintiff’s December 19, 2022, motion to amend. Additionally,

20

plaintiff has requested an extension of time of ninety days to file a sur-reply to defendants’

21

December 19, 2022, reply in support of the July 28, 2022, motion for summary judgment.

22

Defendants have filed an opposition to plaintiff’s request for leave to file a sur-reply.

23

As to the motion for summary judgment, there is no right to file a further sur-reply

24

because the motion for summary judgment is already fully briefed with the motion, plaintiff’s

25

opposition, and defendants’ reply brief. See Local Rule 230(l). Nevertheless, district courts have

26

discretion to either permit or deny a further sur-reply. See U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health

27

Corp., 565 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming district court’s refusal to accept untimely

28

materials it found constituted an inequitable sur-reply). Although courts generally grant leniency
1

Case 2:20-cv-02209-DAD-DB Document 64 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 2
1

to pro se litigants, that lenience does not extend to permitting sur-replies as a matter of course.

2

Garcia v. Biter, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1134 (E.D. Cal. 2016). This court is not generally inclined

3

to permit sur-replies absent an articulation of good cause why such leave should be granted. See

4

id.

5

Here, plaintiff does not set forth any reasons why he needs to file a sur-reply as to the

6

motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the request for extension of time will be denied as to

7

the filing of a sur-reply to defendants’ December 19, 2022, reply in support of their motion for

8

summary judgment.
The court will grant plaintiff the requested extension of time to file a reply to defendants’

9
10

opposition to the motion to amend.

11

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 62) is granted in part and denied

13

in part, as set forth below.

14
15

2. Plaintiff is granted ninety days from the date of this order in which to file a reply to
defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend.
3. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time of ninety days to file a sur-reply to

16
17

defendants’ reply in support of their motion for summary judgment is denied.

18

Dated: January 18, 2023

19
20
DLB7

21

calh2209.36rpl

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2