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)
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?