Scott v. Robertson et al

Filing 72

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING AS MOOT ( 69 and 70 ) REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY AND 71 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SURREPLY. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
Case 4:19-cv-06046-HSG Document 72 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DONNIE SCOTT, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 ERIC GOLDING, et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 19-cv-06046-HSG ORDER DENYING AS MOOT REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SURREPLY Re: Dkt. Nos. 69, 70, 71 12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison – Los Angeles County, filed this pro se civil 14 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) doctors 15 Kumar and RN Golding. Defendants have filed two separate summary judgment motions, Dkt. 16 Nos. 61, 62; Plaintiff has filed oppositions, Dkt. Nos. 65, 66; and Defendants have filed replies, 17 Dkt. No. 67, 68. Plaintiff has filed two motions titled requests for leave to file a response to the 18 replies. Dkt. Nos. 69, 70. However, these motions are, in essence, surreplies, making point-by- 19 point rebuttals to arguments made in the replies. Plaintiff has also filed a request for an extension 20 of time to file his surreplies. Dkt. No. 71. For the reason set forth below, Plaintiff’s requests are 21 DENIED. 22 Rule 7-3(d) of the Local Rules of the Northern District of California provides that “[o]nce 23 a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court 24 approval” with two exceptions. Additional memoranda may be filed after a reply is filed where 25 (1) new evidence has been submitted in the reply, in which case the surreply is limited to 26 objections to the new evidence without further argument on the motion, or (2) to bring the Court’s 27 attention to a relevant judicial opinion published after the date the opposition or reply was filed, in 28 which case the surreply is limited to a copy of the opinion, without further argument. N.D. Cal. L. Case 4:19-cv-06046-HSG Document 72 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2 1 R. 7-3(d). Neither exception applies here. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests 2 for leave to file a surreply. Dkt. Nos. 69, 70. 3 The Court notes that Plaintiff objects inter alia to the argument made in Defendants’ 4 replies that Plaintiff’s Statements of Disputed Factual Issues should be disregarded because they 5 violate N.D. Cal. L. R. 56-2(a). See Dkt. No. 67 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 68 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 69 at 1-2; 6 Dkt. No. 70 at 1-2. The Court rejects Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s Statements of 7 Disputed Facts cannot be considered pursuant to the Local Rules. The Court will consider the 8 entirety of Plaintiff’s oppositions, i.e. Dkt. Nos. 67 and 68, including the exhibits attached thereto 9 and the statements of disputed material facts. Plaintiff’s opposition complies with N.D. Cal. L. R. 7. In light of the denials of the requests for leave to file surreplies, the Court DENIES as moot 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file surreplies. Dkt. No. 71. 12 This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 69, 70, 71. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 Dated: 9/7/2021 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 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?