Lee v. Clark County Detention Center et al

Filing 115

ORDER granting in part ECF No. 113 Motion to Strike; to the extent that the court can determine which portions of this brief [ECF No. 112] constitute an unauthorized surreply, those portions will be disregarded in the court's evaluation of the cross-motions for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 6/23/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
2:14-cv-01426-JAD-CWH

4
ROBIN M. LEE
5
Plaintiff
6

Order Granting in Part Motion to
Strike Unauthorized Surreply

v.
7
CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al.,

(ECF No. 113)

8
Defendants
9
10
In this civil-rights action, pro se inmate plaintiff Robin Lee alleges that, while he was
11
detained at the CCDC, the jail ignored a court order to transfer him to the Lake’s Crossing facility
12
for a mental competency evaluation, resulting in his wrongful arrest and unconstitutional detention
13
for 85 days before his state-court case was dismissed and he was transferred to federal custody on
14
other charges. Cross-motions for summary judgment are pending.1 Although the rules of this court
15
permit only a motion, response, and reply brief, Lee filed a “Response to Defendant Las Vegas Metro
16
Police Dept’s Reply (Doc. No. 110) [and] to Plaintiff’s Opposition (Doc. No. 105) to Defendant’s
17
Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. No. 101).”2 Defendants move to strike the portion of this
18
brief that qualifies as an unauthorized surreply.3 Although I decline the request to “strike” the brief
19
under Rule 12(f) because that rule applies only to pleadings, not briefs, I will disregard the
20
unauthorized surreply when evaluating the cross-motions for summary judgment.
21
Discussion
22
The rules of this court do not authorize the filing of a reply to a reply—better known as a
23
“surreply.” In fact, local rule 7-2 states that “Surreplies are not permitted without leave of court” and
24
25
1

ECF No. 101, 104.

2

ECF No. 112.

3

ECF No. 113.

26
27
28

Page 1 of 2

1

that “motions for leave to file a surreply are discouraged.”

2

Lee did not seek leave of court before filing his reply to the defendant’s reply brief, and I see

3

no independent basis to permit it. The proper remedy is not to strike this brief under Federal Rule of

4

Civil Procedure 12(f), however, because that rule only permits the striking of a pleading, and this

5

brief is not a pleading.4 Nevertheless, to the extent that I can determine which portions of this brief

6

constitute an unauthorized surreply, those portions will be disregarded in my evaluation of the cross-

7

motions.

8

Conclusion

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Strike Surreply [ECF

10

No. 113] is GRANTED in part; to the extent that the court can determine which portions of this

11

brief [ECF No. 112] constitute an unauthorized surreply, those portions will be disregarded in the

12

court’s evaluation of the cross-motions for summary judgment.

13

Dated June 23, 2016.

14

_________________________________
_______________ _ _
_
__ _ __
______
Jennifer A. Dorsey
er A. Dorsey
r
United States District Judge
District Judge
ud
ud

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (defining litigation documents that qualify as pleadings under the
Rules).
Page 2 of 2