Williams v. Blagojevich et al

Filing 111

ORDER granting 100 Motion to Strike 99 Plaintiff's RESPONSE to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's 82 Motion for Summary Judgment, 79 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud on 2/1/10. (amv)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CLAXTON H. WILLIAMS, JR. Plaintiff, v. ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Before the Court is "Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement[sic]"(Doc. 99), filed in relation to defendant Dr. Ahmed's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 79). Defendant Ahmed objects that the pleading is an impermissible sur-reply that should be stricken in accordance with Local Rule 7.1. (Doc. 100). Plaintiff counters that Local Rule 7.1 permits sur-replies in exceptional circumstances; his situation constitutes exceptional circumstances; and, "he is simply clarifying for the Court his arguments set forth in his `Response', which his attached exhibits clearly support, and which his original complaint clearly describes, but which the defendants completely failed to address" [sic]. (Doc. 102, p. 2). Effective December 1, 2009, Local Rule 7.1 was amended to strictly prohibit surreplies. ILSD L.R. 7.1(c). Plaintiff's sur-reply was filed December 7, 2009. Furthermore, by his own admission, plaintiff is merely reiterating arguments and highlighting points from his prior response, which does not constitute the exceptional circumstance contemplated by the former verison of Local Rule 7.1.

No. 06-772-MJR-CJP

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Ahmed's motion to strike plaintiff's sur-reply (Doc. 100) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall STRIKE plaintiff's sur-reply (Doc. 99). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 1, 2010 s/ Clifford J. Proud CLIFFORD J. PROUD U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2