Hayes v. Wong et al
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
STEVEN HAYNE, M.D.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 
TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
This matter comes before the court on the motion  by the defendants to strike the plaintiff’s
supplemental brief  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  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
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?