Hayes v. Wong et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying 21 MOTION to Strike 20 MOTION Supplementing Response to Defendant's Opposition Motion and Request to Dismiss Complaint . Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 9/21/17. (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
MICHAEL HAYES

PLAINTIFF

v.

No. 4:17CV2-DMB-JMV

RAYMOND WONG
STEVEN HAYNE, M.D.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION [21]
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
This matter comes before the court on the motion [21] by the defendants to strike the plaintiff’s
supplemental brief [20] in support of his motion to remand. Courts must interpret the filings of pro se
litigants liberally, as they are usually unskilled in the law. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). In
addition, pro se litigants often do not know the deadlines involved in various aspects of litigation.
Though the court may hold a pro se plaintiff responsible for knowledge of procedural rules, the court
will, in its discretion, permit this minor deviation from regular motion practice. The Fifth Circuit
acknowledges a district court’s discretion to do so, holding that “the precise nature of the opportunity
given a pro se litigant to remedy defects in his summary judgment materials lies, of course, in the sound
discretion of the district court.” Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1128 (5th Cir. 1981). For these
reasons, the motion [21] by the defendants to strike the plaintiff’s supplemental brief is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this, the 21st day of September, 2017.

/s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE